ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked-

Mackerel Quota

Tom Greatrex: What recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on mackerel quota.

Richard Benyon: I have had various discussions about north Atlantic mackerel, including discussions with Maria Damanaki, the EU Fisheries Commissioner, and discussions at Council of Ministers meetings in Brussels in December. Our discussions centred on hugely increased catches by Iceland and the Faroe Islands, and their failure to agree on stock management measures. In the light of that, the EU Commission agreed to table proposals for sanctions against both Iceland and the Faroe Islands if no agreement was possible in the near future.

Tom Greatrex: The Minister will be aware of the Icelandic Government's comment that the proposal to block Icelandic vessels from landing mackerel in European Union ports is neither surprising nor effective, given that most of their catches are landed at Icelandic ports. Is it not time that the matter was dealt with seriously, and should not Iceland's accession to the EU be put on hold until the dispute is resolved? It is having a hugely disruptive influence on a core economic interest in Scotland.

Richard Benyon: I entirely agree. My consultations with Maria Damanaki and others across the Government have centred on the proposition that when a country is seeking to join a club, tearing up the rule book before it even enters is strange behaviour. We aim to ensure that Iceland's accession is seen in the light of its actions in relation to the fish stock.

Therese Coffey: I agree that if we are to have quota rules, they must be obeyed. Has the Minister any other views on quotas- specifically in relation to fishermen in the under-10-metre sector-that he might wish to include in his discussions so that we do not experience another crisis in the summer?

Richard Benyon: We will be consulting the industry shortly about changes in the operation of our domestic fleet and about how we can help it to secure greater sustainability. The issue really comes down to the sustainability of stock. Approximately 1% of the egg survey is in Icelandic waters. There is an obvious way in which the Icelanders can negotiate. I urge them to operate in the way that we do across fisheries-to sit down and talk, rather than acting unilaterally.

Fish Discards

Nigel Adams: What steps she is taking to reduce fish discards; and if she will make a statement.

Matthew Hancock: What steps she is taking to reduce fish discards; and if she will make a statement.

Tony Baldry: What steps her Department is taking to reduce fish discards.

Richard Benyon: The United Kingdom Government are pursuing a policy of minimising discards through the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2012. Work is also being undertaken domestically with our fishing industry to increase the selectivity of fishing and to improve the utilisation of the remaining unavoidable fish catches. Levels of discards from the UK fleet have been decreasing year on year since 2002. I am committed to taking further action.

Nigel Adams: Are there any lessons to be learned from countries such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, which have managed to replenish their fish stocks and in which the common fisheries policy has completely failed?

Richard Benyon: It is beyond doubt that the common fisheries policy is broken. It is based on a centralised top-down system, and we must reform it by decentralising it. We must also make the management of our fisheries relevant to the way in which we manage the marine environment as a whole.
	We can learn lessons from other countries. As our exchanges on the previous question made clear, they are not repositories of pure virtue, but there are certainly lessons that we can learn about the local and regional sea base and management.

Matthew Hancock: Was the Minister as shocked as I was by a recent television documentary about fish discards? I was appalled by what fishermen who work so hard have to do because of the rules. Will the Minister assure me that he has been working on the issue not just since the public outcry, but since the moment that he was given the job?

Richard Benyon: I applaud the Fish Fight campaign, which has been conducted very ably by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. My one criticism is of the line that the fight back starts here. I should say in fairness to the previous Government that the fight back started many years ago-and the present Government, too, have worked extremely hard on catch quotas, fishing for the market, and a variety of measures to reduce the number of discards. I am happy to work with anyone. We need to win public support and, in that regard, the programme was a great success.

Tony Baldry: Speaking as the last Conservative Fisheries Minister in the Major Government, I can tell my hon. Friend that I thought he was considerably better at identifying fish at Billingsgate than I could ever have been.
	I believe that the whole House supports my hon. Friend on the need to reform the common fisheries policy. Let me say to those who oppose quotas that reducing fishing and protecting fish stocks by reducing effort is no easier an option, and that we must face the reality that fishermen will not want to keep their boats in port.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. When interviewed at five o'clock in the morning, I would be hard pressed to recognise my own children, let alone fish stocks. I am grateful to my friends and enemies who have sent me fish charts, with which I wiled away the long winter evenings. He rightly says that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem; there are opportunities to increase effort control, but we also have to deal with the problem of quotas. That is a problem in a mixed fishery and it has been part of the driver towards the number of discards, which we are so keen to reduce.

Eilidh Whiteford: I know that the Minister is well aware of the pioneering efforts made by the Scottish white fish fleet and the Scottish Government in recent years to reduce dramatically the number of discards going into the North sea-the relevant figure is about 30%. People in coastal communities are pleased that the issue is now getting the wider prominence it deserves and has deserved for a long time. I am grateful to him for outlining his Government's commitment to radical reform of the common fisheries policy, but I still question whether there really is the political will across the European Union to make the kind of changes necessary to tackle discards. We welcome his commitment, but what are the realistic assessments-

Mr Speaker: Order. We do have to have a question. I call the Minister.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments and I applaud the work of her constituents in trying to ensure that catch quotas work. I am glad that we managed to expand the scheme in the December round. She is right to say that we have to build alliances across the European Union, and I am working extremely hard to do that in the fringes of Council meetings and elsewhere. We are trying to get support at the radical end of the reform spectrum, so that we can achieve the kind of changes that mean that discards are a thing of the past and we can address the concerns raised by her constituents and constituents of all Members, including those representing inland constituencies, by ensuring that sustainability is at the heart of our fisheries management policies.

Kerry McCarthy: One of the methods of dealing with the problem of overfishing and depleted fish stocks is the use of marine conservation zones. Will the Minister update the House on what he is doing to ensure that there are more of these zones, not only in British waters, but overseas?

Richard Benyon: We are progressing with the implementation of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which will result in marine protected areas-marine conservation zones-around the coasts. We have four projects up and running, and I am working very hard to ensure that they are properly resourced and working towards the timetable of 2012. I very much hope that they will be able to deliver on that, and I will keep the House informed on progress. At the recent OSPAR talks in Bergen I was able to support a wider proposal in respect of international waters. The work we do on international fisheries and fisheries partnerships is key to ensuring that fishery conservation measures not only apply in our own waters, but are followed up elsewhere.

William Bain: Does the Minister agree that, as Denmark has shown, further action can be taken by this Government, in conjunction with the devolved Administrations, to cut discard levels this year? Will he seek approval for an increase in the scope of this year's catch quota trials, which half the Scottish white fish fleet expressed an interest in joining? Will he pledge to incentivise investment in more selective nets and in on-ship CCTV to monitor what stocks are being taken from the sea? Would those measures, together with radical reform of the CFP, not add up to an effective national action plan to end for good this appalling waste of good quality fish?

Mr Speaker: There were a lot of questions there, but I know that we will hear a pithy response from the Minister.

Richard Benyon: The UK Government have a very clear strategy to ensure that we reduce the level of discards and do not wait until 2012 to achieve that. Our fishing for the market scheme is addressing the 54% of discards created by the fact that there is no market for those products. We also managed to get an extension of the catch quota trials, and I was extremely pleased about that, because they achieve the virtue of catching less but landing more. That is the holy grail of fisheries management.

Rural Payments Agency

Tessa Munt: What progress she has made on improving the performance of the Rural Payments Agency.

James Paice: Progress continues to be made in addressing the dire legacy described vividly in the independent review of the RPA published last year. Despite the issues arising from the updating of farmers' maps and reduced staff numbers, the RPA met its target to pay 85% of 2010 claimants by the end of December. But there is still much to do and it will inevitably take some time to address some very long-standing problems fully.

Tessa Munt: I ask the Minister to recognise the work of the Farm Crisis Network, particularly the work of Suzie Wilkinson, the FCN's co-ordinator in Somerset, and the pastoral and practical support it gives to farmers working under stress. In Somerset, there were 12 new cases in January, 10 of whom are owed something like £295,000. Farmers face eviction by banks, are unable to pay for feed and some may have to sell their stock because of TB problems. Will the Minister ensure that the RPA accelerates the cases of Somerset farmers, such as Bob Pether, whose payments have been incorrect every year since-

Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the hon. Lady.

James Paice: I have huge admiration for the work of the Farm Crisis Network, which I have visited and met on a number of occasions. The hon. Lady is right to say that it supports some very hard-pressed farmers, particularly small farmers, for whom the single farm payment is a major part of their income and without which they would be in desperate straits. I am determined that the RPA should find a way forward to get some cash into the hands of those people as soon as possible. If she would like to write to me about particular cases, I would be happy to pursue them.

Susan Elan Jones: Will the Minister tell us how many staff will be cut from the RPA as a result of the 30% departmental spending cuts? Will he also explain how that will speed up payments to farmers?

James Paice: The hon. Lady assumes that the RPA was working efficiently, but it certainly was not, as the previous question demonstrates. Yes, the reduction in overall public expenditure means that the RPA is having to take a reduction in staff alongside all other arm's length bodies, but at the same time it is becoming far more efficient, with better work practices and a new chief executive who started a fortnight ago. I am convinced we can do better with less.

Forests

Julian Huppert: What plans she has to ensure that access to forests is maintained or improved.

Caroline Spelman: The public forest estate consultation explores a range of models for the ownership and management of the estate and how important public benefits such as access can be maintained. An example would be how lease conditions could be used to ensure that access and other public benefits are protected.

Julian Huppert: In addition to established legal rights of way and Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 access rights, will the Secretary of State ensure that there are robust additional protections for access rights that are currently permitted access only, and will she safeguard existing access for bikes and horses?

Caroline Spelman: We had a lengthy debate last night in which I made it clear, at length, that permissive access rights are very limited in number and are on land that the public forest estate does not own.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Secretary of State tell the House the projected figures for the next 10 years for the revenue that will come from the public forest estate? Will that revenue be offset by the benefit to the Exchequer from the sale of such land?

Caroline Spelman: Different types of forest are subject to different proposals in our consultation document, which is a genuine consultation. The planned sales-a continuation of the previous Government's programme-are expected to raise £100 million over the spending review period. That will be part of DEFRA's overall provision within that period.

Neil Parish: I welcome the Secretary of State's genuine consultation over the next 11 weeks-12 weeks in all. When will she make a statement to the House after the consultation has finished?

Caroline Spelman: First, we need to make it absolutely clear that this is a genuine consultation, unlike a lot of the consultations that I experienced under the previous Government. We want as many people to take part as possible. There is a statutory three-month period; Ministers will reflect on relevant considerations and bring to the House our considered view in a timely fashion.

Mary Creagh: Public access is absolutely vital to local communities. The Secretary of State talks about her consultation period, but before that period is over, the Government will start selling off 10,000 hectares of public forest land. That is more than was sold in Labour's entire period in office. I should like to know what right communities will have to bid for that land. How long will they have to raise the money? Will it be sold as leasehold, and is it correct that the selection for this year deliberately avoids woodlands that give public benefits because the Government want to maximise the capital raised from assets?

Caroline Spelman: The criteria for the planned sales are set out in the public domain on the Forestry Commission website. They are a continuation of a programme of sales that have taken place over the past three decades. As the hon. Lady knows, her party's Government sold off 25,000 acres- [ Interruption ]-without the protection that this Government will provide.

Mary Creagh: Hon. Members cry "Shame," but we sold that off to reinvest the money in the forest; this money is to be reinvested in flood defence schemes. The land will be sold with no higher rights of public access. Government Members should think very carefully about what is happening. Is it not the case that, on the public forest, the Secretary of State does not know what she is doing, does not know why she is doing it, and nobody wants her to do it? Is it not time to stop and think again?

Caroline Spelman: I think the hon. Lady was not listening clearly last night. Ministers have repeatedly given assurances in this House that access and other public benefits will be protected. However, many of the pieces of land that fit the criteria the Forestry Commission has set out do not have access attached to them at present. She should reflect carefully on our public consultation document and gain a better understanding of what happened when Rigg wood was sold off under the conditions set by her party's Government in their contract: without protection, access is now denied.

Ivory Trade

Adrian Sanders: What steps she is taking to reduce the volume of international trade in ivory.

Richard Benyon: The UK supports the global ban on the international trade in raw ivory imposed in 1989. While occasional one-off sales have been permitted in the past, we are working to ensure that no further sales of ivory take place without firm evidence that such sales will reduce poaching. In the UK, we employ stricter domestic measures than those required under the convention on international trade in endangered species concerning the trade in ivory.

Adrian Sanders: I think the Government are doing a good job, building on the work of the previous Government, but there is still a great deal of concern that we are not tackling where the exchange takes place: on the internet. Do the Government have any plans to try to stop the sale of ivory through internet transactions?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend is right to point to that development in the illegal trade in ivory. For that reason, it is important that we continue to support schemes that give us evidence: for example, MIKE, the monitoring of illegal killing of elephants; and-dealing precisely with his point-ETIS, the elephant trade information system. We support those international efforts to make sure that we understand the problem and that we in this country have our house in order. I am impressed by the expertise found in a variety of agencies and shall continue to ensure that we play our part.

Common Agricultural Policy

Annette Brooke: What steps she is taking towards reform of the common agricultural policy.

Caroline Spelman: The Government have recently responded to the European Commission's communication, "The CAP towards 2020". Our response calls for ambitious reform of the CAP that will enable farmers to meet the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. The second pillar of the CAP provides essential support to farmers to deliver environmental public goods. Which of the European Commission's proposed options for reform does she think best balances the need to maintain landscape and diversity with food production and the protection of consumers and taxpayers?

Caroline Spelman: The whole of the Commission's proposed reform of the CAP should address the twin challenges that the hon. Lady describes. Obviously, it is the combination of direct payments and the payments under pillar 2-in particular, in this country, the way we use agri-environment stewardship schemes-that balances best the environmental benefits with food production. That is why the coalition Government are committed to increasing by 80% higher level stewardship.

Jonathan Edwards: The Secretary of State will be aware of the unease among farmers in Wales and the Welsh Government about the UK Government's current position on CAP reform. Will she inform the House what progress she is making in developing a joint negotiating position?

Caroline Spelman: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I took the opportunity to invite the Welsh Minister for Agriculture to meet the Commissioner with us as early as June last year. We have had successive meetings with all the devolved Administrations and will continue to do so, as the reform process is likely to take a great deal of time. I find that we have much in common with the Welsh Assembly's position and believe that there is much that we can do as we negotiate the reform to ensure that we get a good deal for farmers in Wales.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I ought to declare an interest as one of the few practising farmers in this country.  [ Interruption. ] In this Parliament.
	Will the Secretary of State, when considering the reform of the CAP, consider that Europe will have an important place in enabling agriculture to feed the world? Will she move away from the CAP's structural faults, such as the growing of tobacco that is of such poor quality that no one wants to use it, and ensure that those practices are stopped?

Caroline Spelman: It is of the utmost importance that farmers in Europe are encouraged to produce more food and to do so sustainably. When we look at the threat to our society globally in relation to food security, it is clear that the nations that have the capacity to increase production sustainably are the ones that we should be fully behind.

Denis MacShane: I mean the Secretary of State no harm, but as the second closet European in the Cabinet, does she agree that if we are to reform the CAP it is no use agreeing only across this Chamber? We have to convince our Irish, Spanish, French and Italian friends. The isolation of her party from the main centre-right conservative parties in Europe does not help.

Caroline Spelman: I have some good news for the right hon. Gentleman: the coalition agreement states clearly that we desire to be a "positive participant" in Europe. My colleagues and I have set about building alliances in order to secure the reforms that will benefit taxpayers, farmers, consumers and the environment. I am pleased to report that he will find that the position of our traditional friends-the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands-and that of the German, English and Welsh farming unions is very close. That is the kind of alliance that brings about changes.

Bees

John Pugh: What recent progress has been made on reducing the incidence of diseases in the bee population; and if she will make a statement.

James Paice: I am pleased to report that there has been a significant reduction in the number of colonies lost from all causes. For example, losses over the 2009-10 winter were 16%, compared with 30% in 2007-08, and cases of foulbrood disease have decreased steadily since 2008. It is clearly too early to know the results for the current winter, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the national bee unit has lost only two out of 180 units.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for that response. The previous Government's promises to fund research into bee diseases created a buzz of anticipation, so can I take it that the coalition have a proper plan "Bee"?

James Paice: The previous Government committed £4.3 million to research on bee health, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, and I am happy to pay tribute to them for that. Of that sum, £2 million was for the insect pollinators initiative, and £2.3 million was for the healthy bees plan, and we hope that those resources will deliver results. I must say, however, that that was the result of a massive campaign by Back Benchers on both sides of the House, which forced the previous Government to commit those resources.

Flood Defences

Mary Glindon: When she plans to make an announcement on funding for individual flood defence schemes during the comprehensive spending review period.

Richard Benyon: The Environment Agency has been consulting regional flood defence committees on the programme for 2011-12. The agency's board will be deciding the allocation of funding to each region shortly. Information on individual schemes will be published as soon as possible. Decisions on funding for future years depend on the outcome of DEFRA's consultation on the way schemes are funded.

Mary Glindon: People in the north-east whose homes were devastated by the floods in 2008 have learned that planned flood defences have now been deferred. What message does the Minister have for those people who, as well as living with the worry of future floods, have the added financial concern of losing all insurance cover because those defences are not guaranteed to go ahead?

Richard Benyon: First, those schemes have not been rejected; they will be looked at again to ensure that they can provide good value for money for the taxpayer. Secondly, we are consulting on a payment-for-outcomes scheme, which for the first time will ensure transparency in flood funding, allowing local communities to understand where they are in the pecking order and how they can assist in ensuring that their flood schemes come forward. On insurance, we are working closely with the Association of British Insurers, so that we can ensure future cover after the statement of principles ends.

Greg Mulholland: Everyone realises that money is tight, but will the Minister look again at the importance of the Leeds flood alleviation scheme on the River Aire? In 2007, the city centre was centimetres away from flooding, with £500 million of damage to 3,000 properties projected. It is an incredibly important scheme that cannot simply be left to gather dust.

Richard Benyon: I am conscious of the scheme's importance to the people of Leeds, and much work can be done to ensure that parts of it are certainly brought forward in a viable form. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had discussions with the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and she will be happy, as I will, to discuss the intricacies of the scheme. At the moment, it will cost roughly £250,000 per property, which is a difficult sum to get around in terms of value for money. Many other schemes provide much better benefit, but I very much hope that we can work with the local authority and with hon. Members to ensure that, in time, we bring forward elements of it.

Jamie Reed: It is a matter of fact that the Government have decided to cut flood defence spending by 27%. Those cuts mean that the Environment Agency has had to change the way in which it allocates resources through its outcome-measure assessments, and that has already had an effect upon flood defence schemes throughout the country. Will the Secretary of State today give a guarantee-not assurances, but a guarantee-that her cuts will not prejudice flood defence schemes in rural areas and other less populated areas, where the economies of scale for flood defence spending are very different from schemes in more urban areas?

Richard Benyon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that proposals under the payment-for-outcomes scheme, on which we are consulting, will make things easier for communities that have traditionally missed out on flood funding, such as those he describes in rural areas, and that funding allocation will be clear. I shall just correct him, however. On a direct comparison of funding, we are spending approximately 8% less than the previous Government over the same period. One year ago, his party announced 50% capital cuts, and if he were sitting on the Government Benches and intending to favour flood funding, he would have to explain where else he was going to make cuts.

Forests

Dave Watts: What recent representations she has received on the sale of land managed by the Forestry Commission in England.

Caroline Spelman: Since the beginning of October, we have received 4,200 representations on the sale of the public forest estate, but most of those were in response to press coverage, not to the real consultation document, which was published on 27 January.

Dave Watts: Should it not be clear even to this Government that selling off our forests is a bad idea that has no public support? Will the Minister abandon the policy before she is forced to do so because of public pressure?

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Gentleman was perhaps not in the House last night, so allow me just to remind him that, in the last few months before the general election, the party of which he is a member published when in government an operational efficiency programme setting out the case for long-term leases of the public forest estate and for getting
	"greater commercial benefit from the public forest estate".

Harriett Baldwin: I have had more representations on this issue than on any other since I was elected-probably about 500 so far. If I send them on to the consultation with a covering letter, can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that they will all be counted as individual submissions?

Caroline Spelman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. All hon. Members should actively encourage their constituents to read the genuine consultation document. There has been an awful lot of mythology in the press, and we would welcome responses to the genuine consultation.

Caroline Lucas: Given that 60% of private English forests outside the public forest estate are under-managed, and that only 16% of them meet Forestry Stewardship Council standards, compared with 100% of Forestry Commission woodland, are not the public absolutely right to oppose this sell-off, which puts high levels of access and biodiversity at risk?

Caroline Spelman: I do not accept that it puts biodiversity at risk. That is something that I am particularly committed to enhancing and improving, as is set out in the proposals. The hon. Lady's point will remind everybody that the public forest estate covers only 18% of woodland. Under the reforms that we propose, the Forestry Commission would continue in a regulatory role, and I would expect it to help us to achieve even higher standards of maintenance in both the public and the private forest.

Andrew George: Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's concerns about public perception of the consultation proposals, does she agree that now may be the time to provide greater clarity about the conditions governing how the 40,000 hectares announced in the comprehensive spending review will be disposed of?

Caroline Spelman: I am happy to provide clarity. The criteria for the continuing sales of land as part of the CSR planned release are published and in the public domain on the Forestry Commission website. They look principally for sites that are less accessible and have a large requirement for expenditure. The criteria are set out in the public domain, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can help to point people to the right place.

Peter Soulsby: I have read the consultation paper. I have also read the impact assessment, which shows that the selling of our forests and dismantling of the Forestry Commission has nothing to do with the costs or the benefits. We know that the Government are not listening to the big society or the community, because community groups are desperately worried about having to take on responsibility for their woods and forests. I note that today, as yesterday, the Secretary of State has not even mentioned her phoney argument about regulation, because it is so weak. At the heart of this, one question remains: just why is the Secretary of State determined to sell off our precious woods and forests?

Caroline Spelman: That was part of last night's debate. It is clear that the Opposition do not want community groups and charities to be able to take ownership and management. That is clearly a divide between our parties. This is not primarily about cost and benefit. The point about regulation still stands. The Forestry Commission is both the regulator and the largest seller of timber in the market that it regulates. In this day and age, that kind of conflict of interest cannot continue.

Rural Payments Agency

John Baron: What progress has been made in resolving the single payment scheme difficulties experienced by Mr Peter Philpot.

James Paice: I apologise very much for the unacceptably long delay in resolving the issues on Mr Philpot's single payment scheme claims. For the House's information, I should declare that I know Mr Philpot personally. This is one example of the dire legacy at the Rural Payments Agency. I understand that Mr Philpot is due top-up payments for the 2007 and 2008 scheme years, and these will be made by the end of this month. Resolving the underlying problems will take longer, but I am committed to seeing that permanent solutions are found.

John Baron: The Minister kindly acknowledges that the RPA has failed my constituent over a long period. Will he detail in writing what has held up the claims so far, and which entitlements are causing the problem, in time for a meeting on 15 February between the National Farmers Union and Mr Philpot?

James Paice: To be honest, I am not sure that I can write to my hon. Friend detailing which particular transfers or entitlements are wrong. The problem is the computer system, which is completely inadequate for its purpose. It was commissioned, of course, by the previous Government, and it is not fit for purpose, especially in very complex cases such as Mr Philpot's, where a large number of transfers of entitlements have had to be brought into play.

Rehman Chishti: What progress she has made on improving the performance of the Rural Payments Agency.

James Paice: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier.

Rehman Chishti: Has the Minister considered the merits of outsourcing the agency's payments process to improve performance and efficiency?

James Paice: The short answer is yes-which my hon. Friend might be happy to settle for. I should emphasise, however, that that was one of the recommendations in the report that we published last year. We are pursuing it, but we have to ensure that we get the existing stuff working so that we do not interrupt payments even more while we look at the whole process of outsourcing.

Fish Discards

Simon Hughes: What steps she is taking to reduce fish discards; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Benyon: I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier.

Simon Hughes: I listened to the Minister's earlier answers. Fish, like forests, are of as much interest in Bermondsey and Southwark as anywhere else in Britain. What is he doing not only to deal with the common fisheries policy, but to ensure that people at home understand the benefits of eating more fish, particularly sustainably caught fish, so that they can both be healthier and help to solve this Europe-wide failure?

Richard Benyon: The Fishing for the Market project, which is being carried out by DEFRA, analyses the 54% of discards that are created because there is no market for those fish. Some of them are perfectly edible delicious fish, such as dab. We must also ensure that the public ask for Marine Stewardship Council accredited fish, which can be bought at the fishmonger and the supermarket. Supermarkets are the key in driving forward this agenda.

John Cryer: The common fisheries policy is probably the most unmitigated disaster in EU history-and that is up against some pretty stiff competition. The doctrine of common resource has been a disaster from the beginning. The Minister says that the common fisheries policy is broken, so why is he talking in terms of reform. Why does he not just abolish it?

Richard Benyon: I could spend all my energy trying to unpick the common fisheries policy from various treaties, probably going back to the treaty of Rome. However, I am dealing with an industry in crisis, and with people's jobs. They want me to push at a door that is open. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the Commission's paper and position statement, because for the first time there is an opportunity to decentralise this matter and to get back more local control. That is what the industry wants, and what we all want.

Dangerous Dogs

Gavin Shuker: When she plans to announce proposals arising from her Department's consultation on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

James Paice: We are working closely with the Home Office, and we expect an announcement shortly regarding antisocial behaviour, in which the issue of dogs will be included.

Gavin Shuker: Members from across the House who have had serious dog attacks in their constituencies will welcome that answer. There are, however, serious concerns about the ability to implement any changes that come from the consultation, given the serious and deep cuts to the Department for Communities and Local Government and neighbourhood policing. I would like the Minister to respond to that.

James Paice: I cannot pre-empt the announcements that the Home Office will make shortly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the plan is not for massive additional public expenditure in dealing with this issue. He will have to await the proposals that will be published shortly.

James Gray: We are all concerned about dangerous dogs-of course we are-and about the antisocial element among ordinary dogs. None the less, does the Minister agree that there is a risk that perfectly normal dogs that bark might suddenly find themselves captured in all-encompassing anti-dog regulations? Will he be cautious in addressing the problems raised by the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker)?

James Paice: My hon. Friend is right to urge caution. There are two slightly different perceptions. One is of the dogs that people use as fashion accessories, such as the pit bull-type dogs used by the louts that we sometimes see walking about the streets. However, the tragedies often involve household pets that, for some reason, have gone wrong. We have to bear that in mind and look at the whole picture.

Farm Incomes

Anne McIntosh: What recent estimate she has made of the level of farm incomes; and if she will make a statement.

James Paice: The latest forecasts of farm incomes were published on 27 January. They indicate that average incomes are likely to show a marked increase in 2010-11 on arable farms, but to fall on livestock farms. I am sorry to say that the current price for grain is likely to increase that differential.

Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that incomes are expected to drop by 60% for pig farms, 30% for sheep farms, 48% for farms with grazing livestock and 24% for dairy farms, and that the increase for arable farmers that he referred to is due only to the single farm payment? In the context of common agricultural policy reform, will he assure the House, and farmers, that the emphasis will remain on farm production and on ensuring a fair return to our producers?

James Paice: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to attribute the rise in arable income to the single farm payment. It is because the price of wheat today is more than double what it was a year ago. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, our approach to the common agricultural policy is about trying to drive up productivity and competitiveness and stop wasting money in areas in which it should not be spent. That is why we want to see a greater proportion of the funding spent on pillar two, in which we can actually aid competitiveness.

Nia Griffith: Can the Minister tell us what talks he has had with Treasury colleagues about encouraging the banks to lend more to farmers? Farmers in my constituency are suffering considerable difficulties and finding that banks are changing terms and conditions and refusing to accommodate their needs in any way.

James Paice: The hon. Lady is not alone in having constituents with those problems, and of course they are not restricted to farmers. As she will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already made a number of statements on the subject, including about ways in which he can press the banks to be more open with their lending and perhaps charge less for it.

CITES

Jo Swinson: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Benyon: DEFRA has not undertaken any recent assessment of the effectiveness of CITES. The next opportunity to examine the extent to which the convention is delivering the objectives of its strategic plan will be the CITES standing committee in August.

Jo Swinson: The Minister may be aware of the recent cross-border crackdown on illegal wildlife smuggling in central Africa, which led to arrests and the seizure of 150 kg of ivory, 1,000 African grey parrots, 17 turtle shells, seven leopard skins, two lion skins and a rather grisly haul of ape heads. That successful operation was co-ordinated by Last Great Ape, a dedicated non-governmental organisation. What is DEFRA doing with ministerial colleagues to ensure that such civil society organisations, which are vital to that work, are supported by Department for International Development funding and backed up by ambassadors in making it clear that our endangered species must be protected?

Richard Benyon: I applaud my hon. Friend for her commitment to this matter. I will certainly work with colleagues in Departments such as DFID to ensure that we co-ordinate the great deal of work that we are doing to sponsor schemes that crack down on poaching, such as the one that I described earlier. We have to understand that the real problem is the end user. We can have our house in order here, and our wildlife crime unit does wonderful work supporting endeavours such as those that she mentions, but ultimately we have to deal with those who believe that the products in question are useful in medicine, and those who use ivory in ornaments. That is where the problem really comes from.

Roger Williams: The Minister will be aware that if we are to enforce the convention in Britain, we need to ensure that we have at our airports and seaports the customs officers who are needed to do the work. Can he assure us that there will be no diminution in the effort put in to ensure that endangered species and other animal products are not introduced to this country?

Richard Benyon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am working very closely with Home Office colleagues on their consultation on the new border regime. I have visited the animal reception centre at Heathrow and seen the expertise there, and we want to keep that skill base active across the country.

Topical Questions

Christopher Chope: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Caroline Spelman: My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers and strengthening the green economy. In that context, I am sure that Members of all parties will join me in welcoming the publication of Foresight's latest report, "Global Food and Farming Futures". That excellent body of work, co-funded by my Department, is a searching and rigorous assessment of the global food challenges between now and 2050, and I urge all Members to read it.

Christopher Chope: Why can my right hon. Friend not give an unequivocal guarantee that in any sale of Forestry Commission land, existing public rights of access will be maintained exactly as they are at the moment, whether on or foot, by bicycle or on horseback? The failure of her colleague in the other place to give an unequivocal answer to that question yesterday has increased, not allayed, public suspicion on that subject.

Caroline Spelman: The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), gave precisely that undertaking in the debate last night, and I believe that he has reiterated it today.

Mary Creagh: The Campaign for Better Transport today launched a "Save Our Buses" campaign. Its research shows that Cambridgeshire county council is proposing to phase out all council bus services, and that Northamptonshire county council plans to cancel all existing rural services. Can the Minister tell the House what advice he has given the Department for Transport, or what advice has been sought, about the impact of those bus cuts on rural communities and economies?

Richard Benyon: I can assure the hon. Lady that I am working closely with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport to ensure that a variety of solutions are found in respect of rural bus services. One problem is that such services are extremely expensive, and the vast majority of the buses go around the countryside transporting nothing but air. We need more customer-responsive local solutions. The Government can assist those in a variety of ways.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Secretary of State agree that the new National forest, which covers much of my constituency, is a model of what can be achieved by the private sector and the and third sector in delivering excellent access to, and enjoyment of, the amenities of our woodlands?

Caroline Spelman: I certainly do. I met representatives of the National Forest Company this week. It is a wonderful model of what can be achieved. It involves schools and volunteers and has achieved a lot of regeneration on former industrial sites.

Barry Gardiner: Does the Minister agree with the Country Landowners Association that pillar one of the common agricultural policy should increasingly deliver public and environmental goods, or does he agree with the National Farmers Union, which thinks that that would increase costs for farmers, and therefore opposes the idea?

James Paice: The Government, as has been published in our reply to the Commission's proposal, believe that pillar two is the better vehicle for the delivery of public goods, which is why we believe that pillar one should gradually be phased out over a long period. We can then concentrate resources on transparent payments to farmers for delivering access, environmental benefits and a range of other public goods, including farming competitiveness.

Graham Evans: My constituency is extremely fortunate to have Delamere forest, the largest woodland in Cheshire. Can the Secretary of State assure me, and my constituents, that this Government will always protect public access rights to Delamere forest?

Caroline Spelman: Yes, absolutely.

Barry Sheerman: I would be very disappointed, and so would my constituents, if the forests and woodland question was diverted into a question of access. It is a question not of access, but of ownership. Deep in the DNA of English people is that for years and years they have been fed up because they have been told, "You can come, by our grace and favour, and walk on our land, but you can't own it."

Caroline Spelman: It is a question of both ownership and access. As I explained to the House yesterday, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, it also looked at both ownership and access.

Alan Beith: People in Northumberland will never forget the devastating impact of floods on communities such as Rothbury, Warkworth and Morpeth. Will the Minister therefore assure me that he will take a personal interest in the Morpeth flood relief scheme? It is obviously impossible for all flood relief schemes to proceed at the same time, but the impact on Morpeth, which was visited by leaders from all political parties, was devastating.

Richard Benyon: I am more than aware of the impact of those floods on the people of Morpeth, and of the fantastic community spirit that came out at the time. The community wants to ensure resilience against flooding in future. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will meet him, and them, at any time to ensure that we can carry that forward.

Ian Lavery: Morpeth is actually in my constituency. The townsfolk are absolutely livid-and devastated-that the Morpeth alleviation scheme is being deferred. Will the Minister agree to meet me as a matter of urgency to discuss the Morpeth project?

Richard Benyon: I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and members of the lead local flood authority to discuss that with him, if he can arrange a time with my office.

Andrew Bingham: I am sure that, like me and many other hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Minister has received many representations on the future of public forests. I have more than 3,000 acres of Forestry Commission land in my constituency. Public rights of way will be protected by law, but will he give me a cast-iron guarantee that permissive access rights will also be protected, maintained and freely available under any future management agreements?

James Paice: I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked that question, because it allows me to emphasise that there is a difference between dedicated rights and permissive access. Dedicated rights apply to more than 90% of the forest estate that we own. They cannot be taken away or removed; they are there in perpetuity. However, a lot of people confuse those rights with permissive rights. The only places in the forest estate where there are such rights are land that we do not own, but have by leasehold-mainly on 999-year leases. We cannot dedicate such land because the original leases prevent us from doing so, but all Forestry Commission-owned land has dedicated access, which is permanent.

Dennis Skinner: We hear today that farmers and many others are not able to get hold of grants from the banks to further their causes. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State tell the banks that under no circumstances will they be able to buy forests?

Caroline Spelman: We have made it perfectly clear that the Forestry Commission has a duty and a responsibility, with any of the planned sales of the public forest estate, to satisfy itself that those who wish to buy are qualified to do so and have the necessary expertise to safeguard the high standards of protection of the environment and its biodiversity, public access and other public benefits.

Angie Bray: In my constituency we are delighted that our work against dangerous dogs and their owners has been recognised by DEFRA, and that the borough of Ealing has been selected to pilot the dog ASBOs-or "dogbos". Can the Minister give us further details on how those are intended to work?

James Paice: I admire my hon. Friend's doggedness in pursuing this subject, and she is right to do so. I congratulate Ealing on applying to take part in the pilot scheme and we welcome its interest, but no final decisions have been taken.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State earlier used warm tones in promising future positive engagement with the devolved Administrations on the future of the CAP. Will that engagement be on the basis of DEFRA continuing to ignore the deeply held views of the devolved Administrations on the future of pillar one?

Caroline Spelman: We have been proactive in our engagement with all the devolved Administrations, and recognise the importance of direct payments to farmers. It is that assurance that the devolved Administrations are seeking, and I confirm that Ministers understand the challenges of farming in less favoured areas and will defend those interests.

Simon Hart: Can the Minister offer any help and support to the monks of Caldey island off the south Pembrokeshire coast in their attempts to introduce the red squirrel to their island?

Richard Benyon: I applaud the monks, and their Member of Parliament, for their support for this scheme. Like me, they have seen what has happened in Anglesey and the eradication of the grey squirrel there, which has almost been achieved. That will bring benefits for the regeneration of the red squirrel, and we are looking at it closely in connection with our project in the north of England.

Jessica Morden: Last week I had more representations from constituents who are saddled with unadopted drains and sewers. Can the Minister give me an update on what progress has been made since the consultation finished at the end of last year?

Richard Benyon: We will make an announcement very shortly. I understand the fears and concerns of the hon. Lady's constituents, and we are determined to take forward that very important part of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I will be in touch with her shortly.

Paul Uppal: Recently in Wolverhampton we had a serious incident involving a dangerous dog. Does the Minister agree that police officers need adequate training to deal with dangerous dogs and the skills necessary to handle such situations?

James Paice: I have huge sympathy with those affected by what happened in Wolverhampton, which was a huge tragedy. A well-meaning family took in a stray dog, which then turned on their child; it could not have been a worse situation. Wolverhampton city council has rightly advised that if people find stray dogs they should tell the council rather than taking them in. My hon. Friend is right to refer to police training. Some forces have put a great deal of resources into training their officers to deal properly with such incidents, and the rest should follow that example.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Yesterday in Victoria Tower gardens there was a photo opportunity for MPs, organised by Animal Defenders International, with an inflatable elephant. It was as surreal as it sounds. The event was to highlight the fact that DEFRA has yet to arrive at conclusions on the public consultation on the banning of wild animals in circuses. Can the Minister of State tell us when we may expect that announcement?

James Paice: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the decision is imminent. This is very important. We are well aware of the work that he started on this subject, and will make an announcement shortly.

Rory Stewart: Will the Minister please give us more detail on exactly what will happen with IT management and mapping to speed up payments, particularly for small farmers?

James Paice: The Rural Payments Agency has been very involved over the past six or nine months with the providers of our IT system in introducing what they apparently term a number of "fixes" to the system to try to overcome many of the problems, and they are now working through, and enabling us to get through, some of the backlog. I suspect that we will shortly be making a decision on making manual payments, to ensure that more farmers, especially small farmers, receive their money.

Chi Onwurah: Kielder forest, which will provide the bulk of the income under the Government's plans to sell off our national heritage, is home to 31 sites of special scientific interest, as well as red squirrels and ospreys, yet the Government consultation classifies it simply as "commercial". What guarantees can the Secretary of State give us that the public interest and conservation interests will be met in perpetuity, given that the forest is classified as commercial?

Caroline Spelman: We need to be perfectly clear that Kielder forest is predominantly commercial, but that it retains within it sites of special scientific interest and other recreational amenities that will be protected by the conditions set in the leases-in addition to the legislation that protects such things-if that is the outcome that arises from the proposals under consultation.

George Freeman: Following the very important recommendations laid out in last week's Foresight report on the role of agricultural research in tackling climate change and promoting food security, what representations can the Secretary of State make to our European colleagues to ensure that we have a regime in Europe that encourages agricultural innovation?

Caroline Spelman: We regularly raise these issues with a number of European Commissioners, not just with the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. I have often commended the work of the report to European Agricultural Commissioners for the warning that it gives to the food, farming and research community of the twin challenges of environmental change and food security that mean that we have to use all our endeavours to build the capacity in European agriculture to produce more food sustainably for a hungry world.

Angela Smith: The consultation on the dangerous dogs legislation posed the possibility of extending the law relating to public land to private property, as supported by postal workers unions. Will the Government make that commitment when they announce the outcome to the consultation to protect workers such as doctors, midwives and postmen and women?

James Paice: The hon. Lady is right that the consultation posed that question. We believe that existing legislation might be slightly inadequate, but does cover what we might call the curtilage of property-the footpath to the door, or whatever-as well as open public space. However, there was very little support in the result of the consultation for extending the legislation inside the door and into people's private property-which, as I intimated earlier, is, sadly, where a lot of the attacks happen.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: Will the Leader of the House tell us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 7 February will be:
	Monday 7 February-Opposition Day (unallotted day) [half-day] [first part]. There will be a half-day debate on Government policy on the cost of fuel. This debate will arise on a Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru motion, followed by motions relating to the 10th report from the Standards and Privileges Committee on the registration of income from employment and the eighth report of session 2008-09 from the Standards and Privileges Committee on all-party groups.
	Tuesday 8 February-Second Reading of the Education Bill.
	Wednesday 9 February-Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
	Thursday 10 February-Motion relating to voting by prisoners. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 11 February-Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 14 February will include:
	Monday 14 February-Second Reading of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [ Lords].
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 17 February will be a debate on a Transport Committee report: Priorities for Investment In The Railways.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. On his submission to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority review, which has been published this morning in a written statement, may I welcome what it says about the need for fundamental reform? That view is forcefully shared right across the House, and we all hope that IPSA will listen.
	On counter-terrorism, the shadow Home Secretary has offered cross-party talks to draft emergency legislation, but it is still not in the Library. The Government said in their review last week that using a statutory instrument would be very difficult in the even of a major incident. May we have an update?
	Last night, we saw just how unpopular the plan is to sell off our woodlands and forests, with several Members on the Government Benches voting against the Government. Lib Dems will have noticed that they do not have a single Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I pity them, having to reply to all those e-mails to explain why they voted for a policy that they must, in their hearts, loathe. At least their president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), had the courage to speak out and vote with us on that. May we have a detailed statement from the Environment Secretary on the extraordinary claim she made this week, which was repeated by the Prime Minister yesterday, that the reason for the sale is an apparent conflict of interest between the Forestry Commission's roles as a regulator and as a seller of timber? As a former Environment Secretary, may I tell the Leader of the House that, in my three years in the job, not a single person raised this matter with me? The House is entitled to know what the Secretary of State has discovered in just nine months that none of her predecessors worried about in the 90 years since the Forestry Commission was founded. This is a bad policy looking for an excuse.
	I must hand it to the Government, however, and give them credit where it is due. Given that the proposal might not even save any money, it takes a special kind of genius to unite just about everyone else against it. The truth is that people do not agree with it and they do not want it; even No. 10 is now briefing that it does not think it has been very well presented. So not for the first time I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are going to have to change their mind.
	Talking of which, there has been much comment this week about the Prime Minister having to come to the rescue of the Health and Social Care Bill because it, too, has been poorly presented. Will the Prime Minister come to the House to explain whether he blames himself for that, given the revelation this week that he is having trouble persuading his own brother-in-law, an NHS cardiologist, that the upheaval is a good idea? His brother-in-law is apparently worried that hospitals will be disadvantaged. If the Prime Minister cannot even reassure his own family about the proposals-and the Health Secretary certainly cannot persuade the House-is it any wonder that the public are not buying them? Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have enough time in Committee properly to consider the Bill, because, to judge from the Second Reading debate, there are still far more questions than there are answers?
	May we have a debate on one of the greatest achievements of the previous Labour Government: Sure Start?  [ Interruption. ] It is interesting to hear Conservative Members jeering Sure Start. Before the election, the Prime Minister went up and down the country-we have certainly heard that one before-saying that he was strongly committed to it. He promised that he would back it. He even had the nerve to criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) for trying to frighten people about this; and his right-hand man, who is now the Education Secretary, said:
	"On Sure Start, we won't cut funding".
	It could not have been clearer. Except that we now learn that the budget is going to be cut. A survey by the Daycare Trust and 4Children shows that 250 Sure Start centres are expected to close in the next 12 months, and six of them are going to be chopped by the Tories' own flagship borough, Hammersmith and Fulham. It is no wonder that parents are worried sick. Another week, another betrayal. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why anyone should now trust any promise made by the Prime Minister before 6 May?
	Finally, I have not only been reading the Leader of the House's submission to IPSA; I have also been reading his blog. Musing on hard times, he wrote:
	"I predict that The Times list of the most popular girls' names in the year may include a new one-Austerity."
	May I predict in return that, when it comes to boys' names this year, Dave, George and Nick are not going to be very popular? If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for alternatives, may I suggest Complacency, Incompetency and, as for the Deputy Prime Minister, that is a really easy one: Duplicity? What is in a name? A lot!

Mr Speaker: I think I will take the last observation as a joke, but in any other context the use of the word "duplicity" would not be appropriate. I am sure, however, that good humour is what was intended by the shadow Leader of the House.

Hilary Benn: Indeed it was, Mr Speaker.

George Young: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's punchline did not work.
	I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about IPSA. I am absolutely clear in my own mind that we must adhere to the principle of the independent setting of our allowances; we cannot go back to the bad old days. I am equally clear that we must stick with the principle of transparency. On the other hand, IPSA must recognise that the allowances are meant to support us in the job we were sent here to do: fighting for our constituents, holding the Government to account, and scrutinising legislation. In many respects, the current administration and structure of allowances get in the way of our doing that job. I therefore very much hope that IPSA is able to respond to the representations I have made, and to those which I hope other colleagues will also make, and that it will come up with a revised system that enables us to get on with the job we were sent here to do.
	On control orders, I welcome the opportunity of cross-party talks, and I will certainly pursue the issue the right hon. Gentleman raised with the Home Secretary.
	We had an extensive debate on forests yesterday, and a lot of the exchanges today were also focused on the forests, so I cannot promise time for an extra debate. I welcome yesterday's debate however, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs dismissed many of the myths surrounding our proposals, explained that this was an opportunity to improve the levels of public benefit from our woodlands, and drew attention to the fact that the previous Government sold off 25,000 acres of woodland with a bare minimum of protection. There will be no further debate on that subject for the time being therefore, but we are, of course, consulting and listening, as both the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday.
	On the health reforms, we are simply carrying out the policy of the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). This is what he said to the Liaison Committee a few years ago:
	"We have been asking in people from the private sector to review what we can do to give them a better chance to compete for contracts...so the independent sector increases its role, will continue to increase its role and, in a wider and broader range of areas, will have a bigger role in the years to come."
	He went on to say:
	"The test at the end of the day is not private versus public, it is value for money, and it is not dogmatic to support one against the other."
	I therefore hope the Opposition will support what we are doing: driving forward the agenda set out by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
	On Sure Start, there are sufficient resources in the programme to maintain the existing structure of Sure Start children's centres, so I reject the accusation that was made.
	The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked for more time for the Health and Social Care Bill. The Opposition did not vote against the programme motion setting out the time available for the Bill, so it is astonishing that he should raise that subject now.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's final point, perhaps Prudence would have been a more appropriate name.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but there is a ministerial statement to follow and then two heavily subscribed debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, time for which it is my responsibility to protect. There is therefore a premium today on single, short supplementary questions and the Leader of the House's characteristically pithy replies. Even allowing for that, I am afraid that many Members will be disappointed today.

David Nuttall: May we please have a statement on the future of the maternity department at Fairfield hospital in Bury, following yesterday's decision by NHS officials to confirm the closure decision that was made by the last Government?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the decision taken on 2 February by the NHS North West board on the reconfiguration of maternity services in the north-west, which followed a period of consultation. I will, of course, draw his concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Natascha Engel: The Leader of the House will be aware of today's very important Westminster Hall debate on parliamentary reform, led by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Will he join me in encouraging as many newly elected Members in particular to take part in the debate to offer their ideas for making this place work better, and will he show his ongoing support for parliamentary reform by attending in person?
	Also, the Government have set a grown-up precedent in allowing a free vote on next week's Backbench Business Committee motion on prisoner voting rights. Will the Leader of the House now ensure that votes on all Backbench Business Committee motions will be unwhipped, to ensure that any outcome this House comes to can truly be said to represent the will of the House?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I do hope to attend the debate on parliamentary reform later today in Westminster Hall, a debate to which my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will be replying. He shares my commitment to and appetite for more parliamentary reform. On the hon. Lady's second point, I welcome the opportunity that this Government have given the Backbench Business Committee not just to propose subjects but to table motions. If a motion is tabled that causes difficulties for the Government, the Government may have to take a view, as we did with the debate on contaminated blood, so, with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip sitting a few feet away from me, it would be rash to make any commitment about unwhipped votes.

Kris Hopkins: May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on representation on local enterprise partnerships? My constituency has no representation on the Leeds city region LEP, so we are having to rely on a Bradford-based, Bradford-centric, soon-to-be-imposed shadow mayor.

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I would be more than happy to raise the structure of the LEP in his constituency with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, to see whether we can get a broader base of representation.

Ben Bradshaw: May we have an urgent debate on the devastating impact of the Government's policies on bus services, in the light of today's report showing that Devon would be among the worst affected parts of the country, losing services in Exeter and the rural areas, thereby reversing the great progress made under the Labour Government on improving bus services?

George Young: The right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise that subject in Wednesday's debate on the revenue support grant for local government. Some 80% of bus services outside London are commercially run, and so do not depend on direct funding from councils. There has been no cut in the financial support that we provide for those services, and we have protected the statutory concessionary travel schemes.

Stewart Jackson: May we have a debate on record-keeping at the UK Border Agency? Hon. Members will be aware that we recently debated the successor to control orders, but we are also routinely told that it is not possible to provide information on how many individuals are using articles 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights to avoid deportation when they should be removed from this country. Will the Leader of the House have a word with our colleagues in the Home Office to investigate this unsatisfactory situation?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I wonder whether he would be able to get the information about the numbers that he quite rightly seeks by tabling parliamentary questions, but in any event I shall raise the matter with the Home Secretary.

Bill Esterson: In yesterday's Westminster Hall debate, which I secured, on the future of children's centres, it became increasingly clear that many local authorities are unable to afford to maintain the current network of Sure Start children's centres. Given that concern and the recent reports from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on early intervention, will the Leader of the House think again about providing Government time for a debate on this issue which is incredibly important for the future not just of our children, but of the country?

George Young: The Government are committed to the policy to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. There will be an opportunity to pursue the matter further on Monday, when Education Ministers will be before the House, and I will tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education that the hon. Gentleman may be in his place to do just that.

Greg Mulholland: On the subject of names, I wonder how many boys born this year would welcome their parents calling them Hilary.
	May we have a debate in Government time on the worrying practice that the new Labour Government did nothing about, namely the finger-printing of our children in schools without parental permission? I am delighted that the Government have made plans to deal with that practice, but may we have a debate in Government time to talk about whether it should happen at all?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I will raise the matter with the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Education, whichever is the most appropriate, to clarify exactly what the coalition Government's response is to the procedure to which he has referred.

Ian Murray: Recent events in Egypt have demonstrated the importance of the BBC World Service and its interpretation of events. The cuts in the service that were announced recently mean that "Voice of America" will be the only real international broadcaster left. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a serious debate on the future of the BBC World Service and how it can return to being the world's international broadcaster?

George Young: I am not sure that the assertion that the Americans have a monopoly on the broadcasting of what is going on Egypt is correct.
	The Foreign Secretary made an extensive statement on the World Service last week, which was followed by a series of questions and answers. I cannot promise a debate on the subject, but the next session of Foreign Office questions will provide another opportunity for it to be raised.

Peter Bone: Following the right hon. Gentleman's exchange with the Chairwoman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), may I point out that I have voted for the Government more times than the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer added together?
	If the Government must whip, would it not be useful for the details to be on the Order Paper so that we know which votes are whipped and which are not?

George Young: Let me put my hon. Friend's observation into context by saying that I suspect he has also voted against the Government more often than the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend receives the same communication that I receive, indicating just how keen the Chief Whip might be on his attendance in relation to particular issues. I am not sure that it would be sensible to put the information on the Order Paper.

Nicholas Dakin: Replying to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), the Prime Minister said that the previous Government had planned to phase out Remploy workers. That does not appear to be accurate. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the record is corrected?

George Young: I understand that a programme has been introduced by Remploy. It is now in the third year of a five-year modernisation plan agreed with the last Government, which involved the merging or closing of 29 factories and the setting of challenging targets for a huge increase in the number of disabled people helped into work. We are totally committed to supporting disabled people in employment. We confirmed as part of the spending review that the five-year £555 million operational budget and status of Remploy would remain unchanged-and we did that at a time of financial constraint.

David Tredinnick: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House why the windows of some Government buildings in Parliament square are still boarded up following the students' demonstration? The Ministry of Justice managed to fix the windows of the Supreme Court next day, but it seems that the Treasury cannot do the same for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

George Young: I am sure that funds are available for that purpose somewhere in the Treasury.
	The 41 damaged window panels were removed from the site on 22 January. Replacement work will begin on 12 February and will be completed by the end of the month. Orders were placed by the contractor following clarification and agreement on costs with the loss adjuster.

Geraint Davies: According to the police, Wind street in Swansea has the second highest level of recorded crime in Britain. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is free on Saturday night to take a stroll down Wind street with me and to witness at first hand the outstanding work of the police in apprehending criminals? They made 48 arrests in December. Observing their work would help to inform the right hon. Gentleman in advance of the forthcoming debate on the police grant, as it demonstrates that cutting police numbers will endanger the safety of the public.

George Young: The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), made it clear that had his party been re-elected, there could have been no guarantee that police numbers would not fall.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous invitation, but I am otherwise engaged on Saturday night.

Jessica Lee: Will my right hon. Friend consider allocating time for a debate on the role of the voluntary sector? My constituency contains the excellent Erewash council for voluntary service and other voluntary organisations, and a Derbyshire voluntary, community and independent sector volunteering passport scheme has been introduced. Such a debate would provide an excellent opportunity to discuss successful schemes throughout the United Kingdom and the sharing of best practice.

George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was pleased to hear about the excellent work being done in her constituency, which is an example of the big society in action. I encourage her either to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall or, with other Members, to approach the Backbench Business Committee to establish whether time can be found for a debate on this important and serious issue.

Alison McGovern: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Prime Minister's pet project, the so-called big society? Phil Redmond, the chair of National Museums Liverpool and a television producer who has been lauded by the Prime Minister, said today that he
	"went along with it all because I thought it would be a good way of getting things going, but it's been impossible to get any traction because of the cuts".
	Is it not about time that we debated the big society on the Floor of the House?

George Young: As I indicated in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee), I should welcome a debate on the big society on the Floor of the House. I am aware of the pressures on many voluntary organisations. That is why we set up a £100 million fund to help smaller charities through this difficult time, and to enable them to continue and develop their sound work.

Neil Carmichael: Given the importance of the Health and Social Care Bill, may we have an opportunity to discuss public health, which performs an important function in helping our health services?

George Young: The Health and Social Care Bill contains a fairly large section on public health, because it transfers responsibility for that sector from primary care trusts to local authorities. There should be opportunities for discussion of important health issues in Committee, and my hon. Friend will certainly be able to discuss them on Report.

Kevin Brennan: The Leader of the House has expressed his enthusiasm for further parliamentary reform, and he will be attending this afternoon's debate on the subject in Westminster Hall. Will he bear in mind the fact that the change in our sitting hours which was introduced in 2002 proved pretty disastrous and pretty un-family friendly for those who wanted to take their children on the school run in London? The question is not as simple as some make it out to be.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right: the question of the sitting hours is not a simple one. As he may know, the Procedure Committee is about to conduct an inquiry, and I am sure that it would be pleased to hear his representations. I understand that it proposes to present the House with some options at the end of its report so that Members can decide if and how they want to change the sitting hours.

Lee Scott: Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on the establishment of academies aimed specifically at children suffering from autism and Asperger's syndrome?

George Young: That is an important subject which the House ought to debate. My hon. Friend could apply for an Adjournment debate or a debate in Westminster Hall, or he could approach the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. The House might then be able to give the issue the time that it deserves.

Tom Watson: This is an old vintage, Mr Speaker. The Information Commissioner has forced the Foreign Office to give me the stock list of the ministerial wine cellar. A debate on the future of the wine cellar might identify some Government savings. There is a Château Latour 1962 in there, valued at £3,600. Can the Leader of the House tell me which Minister deserves to drink it?

George Young: I have made some inquiries. The House will be pleased to hear that consumption of wine has fallen by 30% since the coalition Government took over,

Robert Halfon: Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent statement on iEngage, the secretariat of the newly formed all-party parliamentary group on Islamophobia? iEngage has a track record of being aggressively anti-Semitic and homophobic, and has extensive links with terrorism in Tunisia and the middle east. In its capacity as the secretariat, it now has access to the parliamentary estate. Will the Leader of the House raise the issue with the Serjeant at Arms as soon as possible?

George Young: The Serjeant at Arms will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. As he knows, I announced a few moments ago that there would be debate on all-party parliamentary groups on Monday evening, and it will provide an appropriate forum for him to develop his case.

Jim Sheridan: British Midland Airways recently announced the withdrawal of its service between Glasgow and Heathrow. That will result in hundreds of job losses, and will also have an impact on the local economy and the travelling public. May we have a debate on the future of domestic airlines? It appears that the major British companies are opting for the more profitable transatlantic flights and abandoning the domestic routes.

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I am sure is shared by his constituents. I cannot promise a debate, but I will raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Nadhim Zahawi: Will the Leader of the House ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to make a statement on the Office for Budgetary Responsibility and the OECD's assessment of the structural deficit at the last election, so that the deficit denial of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), can be exposed for what it is?

George Young: It is indeed the case that debt now stands at more than £1 trillion, its highest ever level. The deficit is the largest in the G20 and in our peacetime history, and we have experienced the deepest and longest recession in the G20. The coalition Government would welcome a debate on the economy, and the opportunity to draw attention to our disastrous inheritance from the last Government.

Louise Ellman: May we have a statement on the future of the 1,500 people employed by HMRC at Queens dock in Liverpool? I understand that a decision has been reached to close the building in which they work, contrary to the information I was given in a written answer only two weeks ago.

George Young: Treasury questions will take place on Tuesday, but I say to the hon. Lady that, along with other colleagues, a lot of us lost our local HMRC offices in the previous Parliament under a programme of closures that her party introduced. However, I will of course raise the specific issue with Treasury Ministers.

Charlie Elphicke: In the spirit of sober government, may we have a debate on the UK's competitiveness, because although the manufacturing figures are to be celebrated and praised, Pfizer's decision to pull out of east Kent highlights the legacy of years of business being overtaxed, overregulated and discouraged?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the encouraging manufacturing figures published earlier this week. The Opposition have been oddly silent on yesterday's construction figures, which showed the country returning to growth after the Labour party's recession. We have not heard a peep from the shadow Chancellor on this morning's good news that the UK's service sector hit an eight-month high in the same month.

Dave Watts: May we have a debate on issues that Liberal Democrats vote for in this House and then oppose in their constituencies? I suggest that we have a fortnight's debate to make sure that we can get all the issues in.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman is treading on dangerous territory, because I recall a campaign on post offices in the previous Parliament when a large number of Labour Members said that they would oppose post office closures, but then voted against the motion that we put before the House.

Julian Sturdy: I have recently received a number of representations from constituents about empty property rates. Would the Leader of the House consider having an urgent debate on the matter?

George Young: There may be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise that issue on Wednesday when the House debates local government finance. I understand the concern of those who are leaving their property empty not because they want to but because they cannot find any tenants. I will raise that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the draft counter-terrorism Bill is ready? If it is not ready, why have a succession of Ministers, including the Home Secretary, told us that it will be in the Library very soon?

George Young: No date was given when the relevant Minister made the statement to the House, which I believe was a fortnight ago. The shadow Leader of the House told us that cross-party talks might take place on this issue so, given that background, it might be sensible not to publish a Bill straight away.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Given that the number of managers in the national health service increased five times faster than the number of nurses, does my right hon. Friend think it would be a good idea to have a debate on best management practice in government?

George Young: My hon. Friend rightly makes a point that was also made in last week's debate on the Health and Social Care Bill. I hope that it will be re-emphasised in Committee. It is indeed our policy to reduce the overheads of running the NHS and put the resources saved into front-line care.

Andrew Love: May we have a debate in Government time on the tax gap and the contribution that reducing that gap could make to tackling the deficit? Estimates of the gap vary from £20 billion to £100 billion, and we need to clarify the situation. I note that the Government have invested an additional £900 million to gain £7 billion in additional tax. Given that tax offices have closed, would it not be sensible to have a debate so that we can clarify whether we should be investing in this system, rather than reducing it?

George Young: As the hon. Gentleman said himself, we are investing in the system. We have put an extra £900 million into tax collection, precisely to reduce the gap. He will have an opportunity on Tuesday to cross-question the Chancellor on this matter.

Ben Wallace: I read with interest the Leader of the House's submission to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority today, including his specific point about family-friendly hours. May I recommend, or ask him to consider, a change that would neither cost the taxpayer any money, nor have anything to do with IPSA, which is to bring forward the time of Thursday sitting from 10.30 am to 9 am, so that colleagues in this House who do not live in the home counties can get home to their families in the north and west of England, Wales, Scotland and Shropshire before midnight?

George Young: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. There are consequences for the House and for Committees if we move the sitting time forward to 9 o'clock. I say to him what I said to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), which is that the Procedure Committee will hold an inquiry into sitting hours. It awaits, with mounting anticipation, the representations from my hon. Friend.

David Cairns: Such is the enormous concern among those on both sides of the House about the Government's plans to close many of our coastguard stations that yesterday's Westminster Hall debate was completely oversubscribed and many hon. Members did not get the opportunity to speak. Given that, can the Leader of the House schedule a longer debate on these plans, which are greatly concerning many of our seaside communities. The plans were described to me by a shipping expert in the following terms:
	"I honestly believe this is complete madness and will result in disaster".

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I know is shared. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but perhaps he and other Members who are affected by the proposals could go to the salon of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee to put in a bid for a debate, either in the House or in Westminster Hall.

Andrew Stephenson: The special constabulary is an important part of the policing family, and specials make a significant contribution to the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour in Pendle. National specials weekend takes place on 12 and 13 February, so may we have an urgent debate on the important role that specials play and how we can recognise the contribution they make?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to the House's attention the fact that national specials weekend is coming up. Specials play a key role in tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, and as part of the policing family. We want to do all we can to support them and see this group of volunteers as a good example of the big society.

Valerie Vaz: Many musicians, especially violinists, are having difficulties with and facing inconsistencies from the airlines about carrying their musical instruments on planes. Will the Government make urgent representations to the airlines, which have different policies, to ensure that the expensive instruments do not have to be put in the hold and do not have to be classified as hand luggage?

George Young: This issue certainly arose a few years ago when there was a big change in the level of airport security, but I thought that the matter had been resolved and that violinists were able to take their instruments with them. If that is not the case, I will raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Transport to see whether we can overcome the problem.

Nick de Bois: Would the Leader of the House find time for a debate on antisocial behaviour and bullying of children by children outside the school gate? Evidence on this was provided to me by children at Carterhatch junior school in my constituency, and such a debate would allow us to consider their recommendations for dealing with it.

George Young: My hon. Friend will know that I have announced the date of the Second Reading of the Education Bill, which contains clauses that deal directly with discipline at school, giving teachers and heads greater powers to tackle antisocial behaviour. He may therefore have an opportunity on Tuesday to raise the matter with Ministers.

Albert Owen: May we have an urgent debate on the future of citizens advice bureaux funding, which has been squeezed by both local and central Government? When I raised the matter with the Treasury, I was told that it was looking to enhance the role of citizens advice bureaux, given the rising unemployment and debt. Extra resources will be needed to do that, so may we have a debate on that important point?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and this subject was raised last week. Following that, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and a copy of the letter was put in the Library. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a look at it, because it sets out our proposals to establish a money advice service, delivering the UK's first nationally available free financial advice service.

James Morris: My constituents can enjoy good local tourist attractions such as Halesowen abbey and Dudley zoo. May we have a debate about the importance of promoting areas of the country that are not commonly thought of as being tourist destinations, in order to drive economic growth and job creation?

George Young: The Minister with responsibility for tourism, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), will develop a tourism strategy. I might suggest to him that he should visit Halesowen abbey and Dudley zoo as part of the strategy of promoting tourism within the country without damaging outbound tourism.

Jonathan Reynolds: Will the Leader of the House be bringing forward proposals to limit and reduce the number of Ministers in the Government? I am sure that he is aware that in 1856 there were 58 Ministers in the Government, 15 of whom held Cabinet rank. Today, there are 119 Ministers, 23 of whom hold Cabinet rank. If the Government are so keen to go forward with their unilateral reduction in the number of MPs, surely it is only right that the number of Ministers should be reduced pro rata as well.

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We had an extensive debate on this when the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was going through this House. It is now in another place where there is also extensive debate. If and when we get the Bill back in this House, there might be an opportunity for him to raise the matter, but of course, that would not apply until after the next election and into a new Parliament, whereas the proposals for MPs would apply before the election.

Henry Smith: Gatwick airport is located in my constituency, as are many travel companies. Given the recent crises in tourist destinations such as Tunisia and Egypt, in an uncertain world, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consider making a statement on the sort of co-ordinated advice it can give to travel firms about repatriating tourists?

George Young: I think the FCO has a website that is regularly updated, which gives advice to those who are thinking of travelling overseas. It includes FCO advice on the desirability of going to those destinations and the precautions that travellers should take. However, I shall raise with the Foreign Secretary the issue that my hon. Friend has touched on.

Anas Sarwar: The Department for International Development will publish the conclusions of the multilateral and bilateral aid reviews at the end of February. Given that they could change the way in which we spend billions of pounds around the world, will the Leader of the House please ensure that they will be accompanied by an oral statement to the House?

George Young: I cannot guarantee that they will be accompanied by an oral statement, but I will raise the hon. Gentleman's point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to make sure that the House is kept informed.

Paul Uppal: I welcome the Government's moves to reduce the top rate and the small profits rate of corporation tax. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on having a single, flat rate of corporation tax, which would give UK plc a unique competitive advantage in the global economy?

George Young: There are Treasury questions on Tuesday, in which my hon. Friend might be able to cross-question Treasury Ministers, but he is right to draw attention to the coalition Government's proposals to reduce corporation tax to make this the most competitive country in Europe in which to do business.

Thomas Docherty: I think the Leader of the House has been made aware of the fact that I wrote to the Chancellor on 1 November about one of my constituents and that I did not receive a reply until 25 January, some 86 days later, without even an apology for the delay. Given that the Government have committed to getting all Members a reply within 20 working days, will he update the House as to why the Treasury has neither courtesy nor punctuality?

George Young: The Government are committed to providing timely replies to hon. Members and I am sorry for the delay. I have seen the letter, which does offer an apology for the delay in responding, and I shall raise the matter again with my colleagues in the Treasury. Of course, there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to repeat his point on Tuesday, when Treasury Ministers will be here.

Graham Evans: The village of Sutton Weaver is divided by two separate postcodes, which has caused numerous problems to my constituents. Despite a very strong campaign by Sutton parish council, Royal Mail has refused to unify the village under a single postcode. May we have a debate on applications for postcode changes and enhancing local democracy?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I shall pass his comments on to my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the code of practice that governs changes to Royal Mail's postcode address file, known as PAF. Royal Mail will consider making changes only if they will not materially affect the efficiency of its nationwide network of operations.

Barry Gardiner: In his earlier remarks about IPSA, the Leader of the House was right to stress the importance of maintaining independence. Will he similarly ensure that MPs will never again be asked to vote on their own pay and that this matter will remain free from political influence?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. He will have seen my written ministerial statement last month, which I put on the Order Paper, indicating what would happen for this year. Looking further ahead, it is proposed, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, that MPs pay, allowances and pensions will be determined by an independent body.

Julian Smith: On the eve of national apprenticeship week, may we have a debate to highlight the Government's excellent policies in this area, which make it much easier to take on board new employees as apprentices than under the previous Government?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right-there are 75,000 more apprenticeships and we have protected the science budget. This is, indeed, laying the foundations for future growth.

Chris Bryant: The Leader of the House did not make any reference to Bills coming back from the House of Lords in his statement. I presume that is because he knows that Report in the House of Lords can take up to eight or nine days and that Third Reading cannot be on the same day as Report, so there is currently no prospect of the Government getting their Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in time for a referendum on the alternative vote on 5 May unless they make consensual concessions. Will he urge his colleagues to do that?
	I think it was a slip of the tongue when he said earlier that the cut in the number of MPs would apply during this Parliament. I know the Government have been threatening guillotines in the House of Lords, but culls in the House of Commons might be a step too far.

George Young: The Government are determined to get the Bill through in time to hold the referendum on the proposed date. I very much regret that there have been some very loquacious interventions down the other end which have impeded the progress of the Bill. The point I was making was that in order to have fewer MPs in the next Parliament, we have to pass legislation now, but that we do not have to pass any legislation now to reduce the number of Ministers in the next Parliament.

Andrew Bridgen: May we have an urgent debate on the provision of literacy and numeracy training for MPs? Successive shadow Chancellors have certainly struggled with the latter and cannot recognise a structural deficit even when they see it.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is indeed the case that we were running a substantial structural deficit before we hit the financial recession and the problem with the banks. Anyone who denies that there was a structural deficit denies the reality.

Denis MacShane: After the Prime Minister's very kind and generous statement to the 1922 committee that all Conservative MPs will either have a seat after the next election or be sent to the House of Lords, may we have an extra debate on the reduction of representation Bill? As a historian, will the Leader of the House say whether there is any example in the history of parliamentary reform that has led to a reduction in representation in this House?

George Young: Well, the right hon. Gentleman's Government reduced the representation of Scottish MPs, so that is a fairly easy one to answer. I have the privilege of attending the 1922 committee-he would be very welcome to cross the Floor and see the light-but I am not aware of such a specific undertaking. If he had any idea of how Conservative associations work, he would know that the notion that anyone could be guaranteed a seat in the next Parliament is very ambitious indeed.

Tom Greatrex: May we have an urgent statement from the Government on the timing of election counts in Scotland? There have been reports this week of election administrators saying they will not start counting until Friday. They tried that on in the general election and in the last Scottish elections, but it is unacceptable-people in Scotland want to know the shape of their Government as soon as possible. As the Secretary of State for Scotland retains responsibility for elections to Scottish Parliament, may we have a statement as soon as possible so that he can pull the election administrators into line?

George Young: I understand that the Advocate-General in another place has made a very clear statement on this, but I shall certainly raise the matter again with him and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Speaker: I thank colleagues for their co-operation, as a result of which all 47 Back Benchers who wished to contribute had the chance to do so.

Proposed Directive (Information Systems)

James Brokenshire: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the proposed European directive on attacks against information systems, which we have decided to opt in to.
	Hon. Members will not need me to tell them how much we benefit from the services that are now available online. In 15 years, the number of global web users has jumped from 16 million in 1995 to more than 1.7 billion today. About three quarters of all British households now have an internet connection, and last year nearly two thirds of all adults in Britain bought goods or services online.
	We want to build on our cultural and economic success in the online world, but with the growth of the internet has come the growth of a new type of crime and a new risk to our national security. We now face a real, ongoing and persistent threat from other states, terrorists and criminals operating online. They are stealing commercial secrets, they are trying to take sensitive Government information and they are defrauding ordinary people.
	Cybercrime, often carried out by organised criminals, is now a major and growing threat to all sectors of our economy, and we should be in no doubt: online attacks can have a significant real-world impact, from people's bank accounts being emptied to industrial plants and critical infrastructure being disrupted. The risks from cyberspace are now so great that the national security strategy placed the threat as one of the top tier of risks to our national security.
	Recognising the seriousness of the threat, the Government are already investing heavily in cyber-security. Following the strategic defence and security review, we committed £650 million of new investment over the next four years to transform our protective capabilities in cyberspace. Our response is led by Government, but uses the resources and knowledge of the private sector, including those parts of the private sector that own and operate large elements of our digital infrastructure. The programme explicitly depends on building strong relationships with like-minded countries around the globe, because the problem is an international one and online criminals do not respect international borders.
	Here in Britain we have long-standing laws against computer misuse, but we need to be able to take action also against cyber-criminals operating overseas; it is therefore clear that we need to work across national boundaries. That means our law enforcement agencies working with their partners overseas to identify suspects, gather evidence and bring criminals to justice. The European Union directive on attacks against information systems supports those aims. The directive builds on an existing 2005 EU framework decision with which Britain was already compliant. It is also consistent with the Council of Europe convention on cybercrime, which Britain is in the final stages of ratifying. Opting in further demonstrates our commitment to internationally co-ordinated action against online threats.
	The directive will ensure that there is a basic set of agreed minimum rules in relation to online crimes and penalties across the EU that member states must build into their legislation. It will also ensure that member states respond quickly to requests from other member states for assistance in cybercrime cases. Those measures will benefit Britain and other countries that have active online economies, because it will mean that cyber-criminals will not be able to hide in European countries that do not have as well developed laws against cybercrime as we do.
	The directive also seeks to address the threat from large-scale attacks on information systems by ensuring that member states have adequate legislation to allow the prosecution and punishment of those organising, committing or supporting large-scale attacks. That is not a hypothetical threat: it is a real, existing problem for the British Government and British business. Finally, the directive sensibly takes into account changes in the threat picture since the framework decision was agreed, such as tackling the creation of malicious software and other innovative tools that criminals have invented to commit offences.
	It is for all of these reasons that we have decided to opt in to the directive. It fits with our approach of making Britain a tougher place for online criminals to operate in, and it will mean that the reach of our law enforcement agencies extends outside our borders. By opting in now, we do not accept that the draft directive is perfect. We will work to ensure the final text is in Britain's interests and we will seek to negotiate out any proposals we believe are unnecessary.
	I pay tribute to the work done by the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses. They do much to ensure that European legislation is right for this country. On this specific directive, both Committees agree that there is a case for further EU action in this area.
	Cybercrime is a major threat to Britain. The aims of the directive are consistent with the aims of the Government in protecting our country, our economy, our businesses and our citizens from those who seek to misuse the online environment. I commend this statement to the House.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for providing the Opposition with a copy of the statement in advance of announcement to the House.
	I have listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government's decision to opt in to the draft directive on attacks against information systems. It is clear that there is a growing threat of large-scale simultaneous attacks against information systems and an increased use by criminals of so-called botnets-networks of computers infected by a virus that can be activated remotely. There is clearly a real terrorist threat, as well. It is right to say that there has to be a robust and consistent approach to this problem, not only across the EU but internationally, and we know that a sensible way forward is to build on the framework decision agreed in 2005.
	In a report by the Commission in July 2008, the implementation of the framework decision was found to be relatively good, but a number of new threats had been identified; the draft directive has therefore been produced. The matter was before the European Scrutiny Committee on 3 November 2010, at which time the Government still had not decided whether to opt in to the draft directive. I, too, pay tribute to the hard work that the Committees in both Houses do on behalf of us all.
	I welcome the decision, but I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, why has the decision been made now to opt in to the draft directive? After the European Scrutiny Committee had considered the matter, the Minster wrote to the Chair of that Committee stating that a decision on whether to opt in had to be made by 23 December 2010, and promising to let the Committee know the decision at that point. I understand that he then wrote to the Chair of the Committee on 31 January confirming that the UK was opting in to the directive. When was the decision actually made? Was it made before 23 December? If the decision was delayed, why?
	In his statement, the Minister said, "By opting in now, we do not accept that the draft directive is perfect. We will work to ensure the final text is in Britain's interests and we will seek to negotiate out any proposals we believe are unnecessary." Would it not have been more consistent and logical to have opted in to the draft directive much earlier, to ensure that the British government could influence it and have their say? On such a matter, and given that we are building on the already well established 2005 framework decision, was it not in our interest to have our say early on? Why wait until the end of the process?
	Secondly, we understand that there will have to be changes to domestic legislation on issues such as extraterritorial jurisdiction and including all the offences set out in articles 6 and 7. Will the Minister explain the exact changes that will be required, in particular to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and any other legislation? When will the House be asked to deal with those matters?
	Thirdly, the directive sets out the need for a national contact point to provide an initial response to urgent requests for information within eight hours. With the transition from the Serious Organised Crime Agency to the National Crime Agency, what ring-fenced funding will be available for the initial response work, and how will the overall cuts to the Home Office budget affect the ability to provide that response?
	Fourthly, under article 15, there is a requirement for the collection of statistical information on offences covered by the draft directive, including details of the number of offences reported, the follow-up and the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions each year. Although the Minister has indicated previously that some of those data are already collected, what further resources will be needed to ensure that the full datasets are collected, and who will do that? What additional resources have been allocated for the purpose from the £650 million he mentioned?
	Fifthly, what plans does the Minister have for dealing with the increase in penalties to a maximum term of imprisonment of not less than five years? Does he envisage creating a new offence to deal with aggravating factors, or increasing the length of existing sentences?
	Finally, may press the Minister on another matter? Although we welcome the announcement of the opt-in to this directive, it is deeply disappointing that the Government have failed to opt in to the draft directive on human trafficking. We ask them to think again.

James Brokenshire: I thank the hon. Lady for her broad welcoming of this decision and the actions that the Government are taking to combat the threat of cybercrime and on cyber-security. This is probably the first time that the House has had the opportunity to debate a number of these issues and ask questions on them, so I welcome the opportunity as part of our scrutiny of EU directives.
	With regard to the hon. Lady's questions, I can assure her that the opt-in decision was made in time, so there is no issue of any harm in that sense. The negotiations and detailed consideration of the directive were started only recently, so the UK's position has in no way been compromised by our decision. Indeed, the timing has been part of respecting the parliamentary scrutiny-allowing the three-month period so that the European Committees can do their work.
	The hon. Lady raised questions about changes to legislation and made other points on how implementation might take place. I think that it would be premature to address those points directly until we see the final version of the directive, which is still subject to further discussion and consideration. We will investigate clearly and set out for the House properly how we intend to take matters forward once the directive has been finalised.
	The hon. Lady asked questions about the national contact point and about statistics, information and funding. As I have set out, the Government take the issue of cybercrime and cyber-security very seriously, which is highlighted by the £650 million that the UK has committed as part of its national cyber-security programme. We are considering carefully how allocations will be made for that, taking account of the need to ensure that the UK continues to respond effectively to the challenges posed from the online environment.
	I welcome the hon. Lady's broad welcoming of the decision to opt in. We see positive benefits and direct advantages from the directive. On her point about the EU directive on human trafficking, we did not decide to opt in at the outset because it contained no operation or co-operation measures from which the UK would have benefitted. We have said that we will review that position after implementation of the directive, at which point the UK could apply to opt in retrospectively.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: Order. Owing to the pressure on time, please could we have short questions and short answers?

William Cash: The Minister may not be surprised to hear that, as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I do not agree with his assertion that this has been done in accordance with due process. The former Leader of the House of Lords gave an undertaking that, in matters of opt-ins, an indication would be given to the Committee in advance of their intention. That indication has not been given. The draft is still under scrutiny and is currently deficient, as the Minister has conceded. What is the point of having a scrutiny process if it is compromised by decisions taken in advance of that consideration in full by the Committee, which would no doubt have recommended a debate?

James Brokenshire: I hear my hon. Friend's point. We obviously reflected on the conclusion from the Committee's initial response on the directive, which stated:
	"We agree that large-scale attacks against information systems are likely to have a cross-border dimension and require close co-operation between Member States. We think that the legal base proposed is appropriate and accept that there is a case for further EU action to respond to new methods and tools for committing cyber crime."
	As he will realise, there is a three-month period in which the UK must respond to those issues. We take scrutiny very seriously. Indeed, making this statement on the Floor of the House underlines the important that we place on allowing scrutiny to be applied. Obviously, the directive still requires more work and consideration in the negotiation, and that is precisely what the Government will do.

Chris Bryant: Does the Minister not understand that when Britain is dilatory in signing up to new directives and pieces of legislation, particularly those which have obvious cross-border relevance, it is deleterious to the British interest, because we are unable to take part in the full process of developing the policy? What he said earlier about why we are signing up to this directive but not yet to the directive on people trafficking makes absolutely no sense.

James Brokenshire: We examine the directives on a case-by-case basis, and I have set out clearly that we decided to opt in to this directive so that we could be part of the negotiations. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), the human trafficking directive contained no co-operational measures from which the UK would benefit, which was why we decided not to opt in, but we certainly keep the issue under review.

James Clappison: The motivation behind the change in the law might or might not be worth while, but there is a question about how and where we determine the legislation that governs this country. Will the Minister confirm that this directive has been agreed notwithstanding the fact that it was held under reserve by the European Scrutiny Committee and that it involves a change in the law and, apparently, the creation of new criminal offences, all of which are taking place without an opportunity for a debate in this House, let alone a vote? Has our law-making process not been bypassed altogether so that we now have a law that, whatever its merits, has simply been made in Brussels?

James Brokenshire: I simply do not agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. We have allowed scrutiny of the approach and of the directive. I hear his point, but the implementation of the directive will take place in this country, and I think that the importance of cross-border working on an issue such as cybercrime, where close co-operation is needed, means that that work at EU level is important. We clearly keep the interests of the British people at the heart of our intentions, to ensure that the decisions made add to their protection, which is threatened by increasing levels of cybercrime and by those who wish to prey on them using computers and the internet.

Tom Brake: Does the Minister agree that by opting in to the directive we will strengthen the UK's leadership role in the fight against cybercrime and that, were the UK to sign up to the EU directive on human trafficking, we could provide additional leadership in that field as well?

James Brokenshire: As I have said, we keep the position on the human trafficking directive under review. I think that the directive that we are considering today has clear benefits and builds on the work of the Council of Europe's convention on cybercrime, which, interestingly, the previous Government signed up to in 2001 but never got around to ratifying. That highlights the importance that this Government place on international co-operation when dealing with these important matters.

Bob Blackman: I welcome the statement, but cybercrime does not recognise international or EU boundaries, as my hon. Friend recognises, so will he confirm that there is nothing in the directive that will prevent us from seeking to co-operate with other Commonwealth countries, our friends in the United States and other like-minded countries to combat that menace?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need for international co-operation. It is one of the reasons that we have ratified the European convention on cybercrime, which has in fact been signed up to by a number of countries outside Europe, including the United States. We take the important issue of international co-operation very seriously, and the directive we have decided to opt in to underlines and telegraphs that commitment, but clearly there is work to do with countries outside the EU as well.

Ben Wallace: Nowadays, investigators need access to current and historical data in order to achieve a successful prosecution in cybercrime and other internet crimes. In the past, the United Kingdom wanted seven years to be the key measure throughout Europe of the time that IT providers, banks and so on held back-data, so that we could get proper investigations going. Does the directive set a limit and require all EU Governments to place a duty on IT providers to hold data for the same time?

James Brokenshire: The directive is focused on the criminality and on cyber-attacks. It includes provisions on mutual co-operation, but it does not set the sort of framework to which my hon. Friend refers.

Lorraine Fullbrook: Will the Minister confirm that the measure is not about sovereignty, but about practical co-operation that is vital to our national interests?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend sums up the measure very well. It is very much focused on practical co-operation and on ensuring common standards, which, building on co-operation, better information and mutual assurance, provide practical benefits for the United Kingdom, given the challenges that we face from cybercrime committed not only in this country, but in other EU countries.

Christopher Chope: The Minister refers to the Council of Europe convention, which covers 47 countries plus the United States and other countries, but what added value does the directive have when compared with that convention? If the directive is inadequately drafted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) says it is, why do we not wait to see whether it can be correctly drafted before we sign up to it?

James Brokenshire: The directive builds on the convention and deals with certain additional issues, such as the response that other EU countries provide to requests for information on cyber-related attacks and cybercrimes, so we think that it has important benefits. It is precisely because of those practical benefits that we think it appropriate to opt in at this point and to negotiate on and change the drafting where it requires further work. We believe that, because of the directive's practical and direct benefits, it is important to be there and do that.

Julian Huppert: Will the Minister help me on a technical point? I understand that the directive is a repeal-and-replace measure; it repeals a directive to which the UK is party and replaces it with a new version. If the UK had opted out of the directive-I am glad that it has not-would it have still considered itself bound by the original 2005 framework decision? If not, what would the implications have been for UK cyber-security, given that that framework decision provides for police and judicial co-operation on cross-border cyber-threats?

James Brokenshire: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question, which transcends this directive, which is a Title V measure, as contrasted with the third pillar measures that are subject to the potential block opt-out in 2014. I hesitate to go into the technicalities, but we have clearly opted in to the directive, so it falls within the Title V base rather than the third pillar base. It was a technical question, and I am sorry for that rather technical response.

Charlie Elphicke: In Dover, we see human trafficking and all too often the evil perpetrated by international gangs in the physical sphere. We should sign up to directives only when we get information-sharing and international assistance, because crime knows no borders, but can the Minister reassure the House that there will be no mission creep from cybercrime to the snooping that we have seen under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and, in striking the right balance, we approach those issues with the rights of the individual's freedoms and liberties very much at the forefront of this Government's mind. We believe that the directive is important and will add value, but we will approach those issues with liberty and freedom at the forefront of our mind.

Neil Carmichael: I have been a victim of mobile telephone fraud, so will the directive have the scope to deal with cybercrime in connection with such fraud?

James Brokenshire: The directive is very much focused on computers and computer systems, rather than on telephones and mobiles, but, as telephone calls and Skype add to computers' ability to facilitate contact, such communication might be brought within the scope of the directive.

Points of Order

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am gravely concerned about the manner in which the previous business has been dealt with. There appear to be a stream of such opt-ins in the pipeline, so I suggest that appropriate action be taken to ensure that at least the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee-myself-is given adequate notice and advance warning of any such statement, because the Committee has been effectively bounced, and that is not in the interests of the good order of this House, in the Standing Orders or in the spirit of the undertaking that the former Leader of the House of Lords gave.

Nigel Evans: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It seems to be an extension of the statement that we have just had, but Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. "Erskine May", at page 412, says:
	"The Speaker has deprecated as 'unparliamentary' the practice of voting in both lobbies as a demonstration of a 'third' position."
	Last night, in Division 189 on the Government's amendment to the Opposition's motion, 17 Liberal Democrats abstained or did not vote and a further six voted both for and against-and four of them had voted for and against the main motion a few minutes earlier. Will you, Mr Deputy Speaker, repeat the ruling that it is unparliamentary for hon. Members, whether Liberal Democrats or from any other party, to behave in that way?

Nigel Evans: While such action is not out of order, Mr Speaker and his predecessors have deemed it unparliamentary. The hon. Gentleman's point will have been heard on both sides of the House, and the Speaker will reflect upon the matter.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[18th Allotted Day]

Consumer Credit and Debt Management

Nigel Evans: Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Robin Walker and several other hon. Members.

Stella Creasy: I beg to move,
	That this House notes with alarm recent evidence showing a fourfold increase in the use of payday lending since the beginning of the recession and that high cost credit lenders advanced approximately £7.5 billion to low and middle income consumers in 2008 alone; recognises the problems of financial exclusion, lack of financial and debt management education, lack of price competitiveness in the unsecured lending market and the near monopoly positions of many large lenders which contribute to the high costs of borrowing; considers that without action these factors could worsen family debt, poverty and financial difficulties to the detriment of the economic recovery; therefore calls upon the Government to introduce, alongside measures to increase access to affordable credit, regulatory powers that put in place a range of caps on prices in areas of the market in unsecured lending which are non price-competitive, likely to cause detriment to consumers or where there is evidence of irresponsible practice; and believes that such caps should take account of the desirability of maintaining access to affordable and responsible credit, the likely impact on the supply of credit and the cost of enforcement, that they should be regularly reviewed and that they should use the total cost of credit, calculated on a yearly basis, to ensure that lender avoidance and distortions in price are prevented.
	It gives me great pleasure to present to the House today an opportunity to put on record its support for the introduction of caps on the total cost of lending, and so protect Britain's poorest consumers from the practices of so-called legal loan sharks. My introductory remarks are set out in three sections. I shall address, first, the problems; secondly, how the proposals would tackle them; and thirdly, in seeking people's support for the motion, the concerns that they might have about the proposals.
	To begin with, however, I shall tackle what we are not talking about today. The proposal is not about a usury law or about setting a single cap for interest rates. Previous Governments rightly concluded that that would not be the right thing to do. All the briefings that Members have received from industry lobbyists have been about such proposals, and the often cited Office of Fair Trading research is also about such an idea, but let me stress that there are flaws in that proposal, which is why we suggest that something different needs to take place. I shall also be clear that this is not a debate about how we abolish the high-cost lending market, or about stopping people borrowing. Credit is a vital part of the economy and, clearly, a part of the UK lifestyle. Indeed, one challenge that we face during our economic recovery is to encourage people to take a sensible and sustainable approach to credit, because, given how we live in the UK, it is a key part of our future.
	Debt and credit is a much greater part of the UK's psyche than any other country's. As Third Sector Foresight points out, Britain has double the debt of continental European countries, and personal savings are at their lowest levels since the 1940s. In April last year, private debt in the UK stood at a whopping £1.4 billion, and living that way has its own consequences. Surveys by PricewaterhouseCoopers show that debt levels in our society mean that the average household is paying 15% of its net income purely on the interest it owes to service such debts.
	Our focus in this debate is on a very specific aspect of credit provision. The high-cost credit market is very different in its practices in comparison with other, more mainstream forms of lending. We are talking about the payday loans of £100 until the end of the month that keep getting repeated, the doorstep lending of £200 that is offered to people so that they can buy a new sofa, and the hire purchase agreements offering deals that people sign so that their kids can have a new TV.
	Above all, this debate is about the spiralling costs at the heart of such loans, because it is the rates that people charge that make this a billion-pound industry. It is all legal, and it is all growing. While some forms of high-cost lending have been with us for generations, we have also seen in this country a rapid expansion in the scale and use of these forms of credit in the past few years alone. That is driven in part by the drying up of mainstream credit. PricewaterhouseCoopers reports a staggering 79% drop in secured lending in the past year. Research by Consumer Focus predicts a rise in payday lending alone of 40% to 45% in the next few years. There has also been a fourfold increase in payday lending since 2008.
	I see for myself the impact that this has on my community in Walthamstow. Our high street now has a large number of shops offering short-term loans, hire purchase agreements and credit deals. That is a badge of poverty. These companies see our fragile economic conditions as fertile ground. The aptly named Mr Crook, who is the chief executive of Provident Financial, the largest home credit company, says that he expects a growth in his target market as a direct result of the comprehensive spending review. Who does he mean by that? He means those with poor credit histories and those with no credit histories. In my cosmopolitan corner of London, one of these companies employs only people who speak more than two languages, so that they can target newly arrived residents who do not understand or know the British banking system. He also means those who are facing redundancy or are newly unemployed.
	Indeed, as we see higher levels of unemployment, the need to act quickly becomes even greater. As a lady from Leicester who recently contacted me pointed out, as a public service employee on a redundancy notice she could not borrow from either her bank or her local credit union, so what other option does she have? That is when this kind of lending becomes a problem. Some can manage such credit, but the toxic mix of low incomes, perpetual interest payments and no choice affects too many people in our country.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is making her case most eloquently. My constituency also has shops where people pay possibly three times as much for white goods, furniture and so forth. Is she aware that, although the problem is intensifying, it is not new? I wonder whether she has read Proverbs 22:
	"If you have nothing with which to pay, why should your bed be taken from under you?"
	When people cannot pay, their beds and their fridges are taken from them.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend makes an eloquent point. Indeed, I am grateful for the support that we have had from Church Action on Poverty for the campaign and for the proposals before the House.

Neil Carmichael: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bills of Sale Act 1878, which enables lenders to go into people's homes and take property, should be reviewed, because that is an unintended consequence of the Act?

Stella Creasy: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point which Members might want to cover during the debate.
	Most importantly, we are looking at the principle of how we could stop people getting into such high levels of debt because of the rates they are charged for the borrowing that they undertake.

Jim Cunningham: Has my hon. Friend noticed that these businesses and shops are advertised on television? Does she have anything to say about that?

Stella Creasy: I do indeed, but I will leave that to my much more eloquent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), who has done some sterling work in introducing proposals on how we might address some of the problems caused by advertising.
	It is the captive nature of this market that makes intervention so key. The lack of competition for these products keeps prices artificially high, along with profits. The Office of Fair Trading says that there is not enough of what it calls "substitutivity". Let me put it more simply. As the industry itself admits, 25% of home credit users and 23% of payday users have no other credit option. Consequently, these companies can extract what might be termed an economic rent. They set the terms of the trade in what they will lend at a risk that is much too high for consumers. In this context, I pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who is now a member of the Government, and who published a report in 2009 highlighting the lack of competition in this market and its consequences. As he said,
	"We think it is obscene that anyone should end up paying 10,000% APR, particularly when the evidence suggests that these loans are targeted at some of the most vulnerable members of our society".
	These are people for whom such repayments become a weight on their finances and their families-people who do not have large amounts of disposable income and for whom any change in circumstance, be it divorce, job loss or increases in rent, can tip them into destitution. The Consumer Credit Counselling Service says that one in eight people who contacted it for help with such unsecured debts in the first half of last year were on jobseeker's allowance. Contrary to what might have been suggested this morning on the "Today" programme, one in 10 payday loan customers is on £11,000 per year or less. These are people like the man who contacted me because he currently has nine payday loans that he is trying to pay off. One company, Wonga, is chasing him for £1,600 for an £800 loan that is 40 days overdue. The first loan was meant to be a stop-gap to bridge the gap between one job and the next pay cheque, but the interest in itself quickly becomes the long-term debt.
	If those are the problems, what are the solutions?

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the very powerful argument that she is making. Does she agree that part of the problem is that a vicious cycle develops, whereby companies use the rate of default to justify the increasing percentage that they are charging on the loans? That is a completely fallacious argument, but one that they always advance to the regulator.

Stella Creasy: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Few companies have been able to explain to me precisely how they manage to set their rates; they seem to pick a number out of the air and go with that. However, I will return to that point in some of my suggestions for solutions.
	There is a new proposal that we, as a House, can take forward to address this phenomenon, and that is what the motion is about. It is based on new evidence about what would work in addressing the impact of such loans on our constituents. That is why I come to the House today not to speak on my own but to speak with the backing of many different organisations from a wide range of sectors. I want to put on record my thanks to Citizens Advice, which has opposed other measures such as interest rate caps, but in contrast believes that these proposals could offer a way forward; to Consumer Focus, who says of this motion that it is
	"a different, and more considered, approach than the blanket application of a blunt interest-rate-cap";
	to Martin Lewis, a passionate advocate for financial education, as many Members may have found out earlier this week, who had also opposed interest rate caps but supports these proposals as "much more sensible"; and to the Better Banking campaign, London Citizens, the Co-operative movement, Compass, the GMB, Unison, Church Action on Poverty, the New Economics Foundation, the Centre for Responsible Credit, and countless others, especially those on Twitter, who have supported these proposals.
	All those people agree that we can have an effective, evidence-based policy, and that we can learn about what works from other countries where such measures have been introduced. Nothing that I am proposing today is rocket science or untried or tested. When we talk to those people outside the UK, we find that they are surprised that we have not dealt with the problem so far.

Steve Rotheram: We, as parliamentarians, should congratulate my hon. Friend on this debate. Is she aware that today is the centenary of the death of Robert Tressell? I am sorry that I am unable to stay for the whole debate because I am going back to Liverpool-where he was buried, unfortunately in a pauper's grave-where there is a series of events. A hundred years on, people are still being exploited. Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue should garner cross-party support to stop the exploitation of ordinary working families?

Stella Creasy: Indeed, in the spirit of cross-party support, I was delighted to hear the Mayor of London say that the rates that these companies charge are extortionate. I hope that I can convince him to take more action on the matter for Londoners.
	I have been struck by the response to our market from people from other countries. As a local MP, I regularly leaflet for my local credit union outside the premises of the legal loan sharks in my high street. Last Friday, I spent 20 minutes trying to explain to an outraged Polish woman that the companies could charge her such rates; something that does not happen in her country. As her English was not great and my Polish was even less so, my gesticulations about where the credit union could be found were perhaps unclear. However, her anger and amazement that this was legal in Britain was easy to translate.
	I am not asking hon. Members to come and stand on a chilly high street in Walthamstow with me. Recent European Commission research shows what we should do and what we should not do. Members may have been told the edited highlights of that 500-page research document. Having read the whole thing, I will offer them some more. It says that we should learn from the experience in America, where interest rate caps that were set too low have caused problems for lenders and consumers. By contrast, it highlights the benefits of a European model. Perhaps that is not a winning proposition for some Government Members, but I hope that they will bear with me.
	The document shows that many ways of capping are used in different countries. Britain is increasingly isolated in not dealing with this market in the same way. Fourteen European countries have a form of capping system or a ceiling on charges. In France, the cap is a third over the market average. In Slovenia, there is a spread of caps, with 13% for a long-term loan and 453% for a shorter-term loan. In Belgium, the cap is based on the amount that is lent, rather than on the rate. There are different levels for loans below and above €1,250. Some countries, such as Ireland, cap only part of the market, whereas others, such as Germany, have limits on all forms of lending. The motion draws on what has been learned from the examples of what works and what does not. It calls for a regulator to introduce a series of caps in the areas of the unsecured lending market in the UK that are not price competitive and where there is evidence that not doing so would cause consumer detriment.
	It is worth considering the nature of the UK high-cost lending market. A range of products is available from short-term payday loans, to complicated hire purchase agreements and home credit arrangements. Because there are no caps in our system, the rates can range from 271% and 440% to an eye-watering 4,000% or more. None of the companies can provide pricing data to explain why it has arrived at such rates. Under the proposal, the regulator would step in and look carefully at these markets to determine, on the basis of the evidence, how best to proceed.
	Competition is a clear challenge. Just six companies operate in the home credit industry, one of which owns 60% of the market. The motion calls for intervention where there is evidence of a lack of competition. It also highlights the need to intervene when there is evidence of consumer detriment. Consumer detriment is littered throughout the practices that the companies get away with: the rolling over of loans and the compound interest that that generates; the administration fees; and setting the level of loans well beyond the realistic reach of their clients' incomes so they cannot pay them off. Friends Provident today admitted that 29% of payday loans are refinanced, and that on average the refinancing rolls over twice. Some 15% of home credit loans are refinanced and rolled over into a new loan before the end of the term. Those practices are designed to ensure that consumers pay, but that they never end the relationship. Instead, they are caught in a never-ending cycle of payments and loans.

John Pugh: The hon. Lady keeps mentioning these companies. She may not be aware that in my constituency, it is national banks that have exploited migrant workers. The advantage, which we secured, is that they have a regulatory body that called them on it and got the system adjusted.

Stella Creasy: The hon. Gentleman makes a good case for regulation, which is what the motion would introduce. However, it would be considered regulation that takes account of the market and of how it affects consumers. That is why I have confidence that the proposals would be effective if they were taken forward by the Government.
	Markets change and the motion is about being responsive to that. It takes into account how consumers and lenders interact with the market. It draws its effectiveness from an evidence-based process. It is regulation at its best and boldest. Crucially, the proposals overcome the problems associated with previous proposals, which calculated the interest rate. Instead, the total cost of credit would be considered. That difference makes all the difference.
	There is strong evidence from countries with caps that lenders have tried to avoid them or to compensate for their profit loss by applying higher charges. In Poland, following the introduction of caps, lenders introduced a mysterious convenience fee to make up the difference. The European Commission report shows that there is support-although not from providers, of course-for capping all the costs associated with loans to tackle such behaviour across the sector. The key to that measure will be how the caps are calculated. We have proposed that they should be annualised for ease of comparison and based on the total cost of the loan, rather than the interest rate alone. Calculating on the total cost makes it clearer to consumers what they will actually pay. There would be no small print and no nasty surprises that undermine people's attempts to budget for repayments.
	The motion is deliberately open about who would regulate. That is because changes have been proposed that would involve a number of bodies in the process, including the Office of Fair Trading and Consumer Focus. The Members who tabled the motion are open on how the regulatory process should be taken forward, but we want it to be taken forward.
	The regulator would work with all stakeholders in the industry, including the lenders. I know that the industry is frightened by the proposals because of the amount of spin that they have sent to hon. Members. That is a pity because if they had been involved, we could have learned from their experience in considering the appropriate levels of capping. Their churlish opposition to any form of price capping and their attempts to conflate concern about interest rate caps with this matter highlight a disgraceful attitude towards vulnerable consumers. That is why self-regulation is not an option and why we as politicians must move towards intervention.
	We have seen in other industries that where there is a lack of competition, regulators can work with consumer representatives and providers to set effective frameworks. That has happened in the water industry, the energy industry and the financial services industry. The proposals therefore build on the best practice in market intervention. I believe that British consumers deserve the best practice.
	Having set out the proposals, I will take on some of the arguments that have been made against them. In doing so, I urge hon. Members to learn from that most famous of Dickensian characters, Gradgrind, who argued:
	"Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else."
	Some people have argued that capping the costs of credit would cut lending in the industry and put firms out of the market-a market that Consumer Focus estimates is worth £35 billion a year. I urge hon. Members to read the European Commission research that investigated that very point and found no evidence to support it. Indeed, the OFT research that is often quoted is based on an industry study, which says that people could end up borrowing from friends and family. Furthermore, the EU research found that countries with no caps had higher levels of illegal lending than those with some form of cap.
	Some people fear that if caps were set, there would be a race to the top for all lenders. That suggests that caps would encourage all banks and building societies to start charging 4,000% interest rates. When Policis considered the matter in 2004, it found no evidence to support that concern. The motion calls for a range of caps to reflect different types of loans. That reflects the fact that mainstream banks would not compete with lenders in the unsecured market.

Lorely Burt: On the Policis research, the former Labour Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), stated:
	"Government carefully considered the case for a cap on interest rates following research carried out by Policis in 2004. The research showed that imposing a cap on interest rates could result in lenders withdrawing from the riskier end of the market, including the home credit market, denying vulnerable consumers access to legitimate sources of credit".-[ Official Report, 22 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 149W.]

Stella Creasy: It is a pity that the hon. Lady was not here at the start of the debate when I set out clearly that the proposal is not for an interest rate cap, but for a cap on the total cost of credit. As I said, that is a difference that makes all the difference to the efficacy of the proposals. That is why many groups that share the concerns in the research that the hon. Lady has set out, are not concerned about these proposals. I urge her to look closely at that distinction. I will press on now because many hon. Members wish to speak and I know that the Minister will have a substantial amount to say.
	Another point that has been raised is that new provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 2006, which came into force recently, may well change the market. Although those provisions are welcome, the protection that they offer presumes that choice is open to consumers and that if they are simply equipped with clearer pricing and the chance to rethink loans, that will resolve the problems that we have discussed. Customers with no alternative, struggling to make ends meet, cannot exercise choice or avoid borrowing. If someone is tied to the train tracks, knowing when the train is coming makes only a limited difference to their chances of survival. Until we give consumers a level playing field by producing powers to cap costs, we will not change the dynamic of the relationship.
	Others have argued that the powers needed already exist, and that the Competition Commission could investigate and act. Indeed, the Office of Fair Trading referred the home credit market to the commission in 2004, as the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) pointed out, and came up with various remedies. Here I turn to the views of Citizens Advice, which argues that the problems are getting worse, not better. That shows that those powers have not worked, so it is time to strengthen the intervention that we make in the market.

Nigel Evans: Order. The hon. Lady has already indicated that a lot of Back Benchers wish to get in. It was recommended that her speech should last 15 minutes, and she is way over that. Could she please bring her remarks to a close?

Stella Creasy: I will, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Finally, people have suggested that we need to introduce more competition by encouraging affordable lending, and I agree, but I do not see that there is a choice to be made between capping the costs of credit and supporting credit unions. Furthermore, it will take a long time for credit unions to become a serious, affordable alternative. In contrast, cutting rates would have an impact on people's debts now.
	I know that some people are concerned about the concept of regulation, but in the motion I simply urge the Government to close the loophole that they have created by saying that they will commit to regulation on the costs of store cards and credit cards but leave this vulnerable market untouched.
	The weight of evidence means that I will hold firm in not accepting the amendment, as much as I welcome the strong cross-party support for the proposals. We all know that that support exists, and in these days of new politics I want to celebrate it, but I fear that the warm embrace of consideration could turn into the slow of death of progress without firm direction from the House. The longer we delay affirmative action, the longer our constituents will pay high rates.
	Make no mistake, the problem will get worse, not better. As Uriah King of the American Center for Responsible Lending points out,
	"payday lenders are aggressively seeking new markets because they are being curtailed here in the US".
	We can all see the consequences in our communities. One example of this is the uncle who came to me last year because his 16-year-old nephew had been given a £300 loan by a home credit agency. His family will struggle to repay that debt. He is angry, you bet, but he knows that it is all legal. What chance for the next generation if we do not act now? Mr Crook will be licking his lips at their predicament.
	Let us not delay. There is evidence to support my proposals, and there is political will in the House for this to happen. Let us consider the motion a belated submission to the credit review, giving the Government a clear and urgent message that the time for capping costs has come. Voting for the amendment would dilute that message. The clock is ticking. Research by R3 shows that 44% of people in this country now struggle to make ends meet until pay day, and the problem will only get worse. Those people are our constituents, and they are our responsibility. I ask Members to please give them more than consideration-please give them action. Support the motion and protect the poorest consumers above the needs of loan sharks.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: Order. As hon. Members can see, this is a popular debate and a five-minute limit has been introduced, with the usual injury time for the first two interventions. Members do not have to take the full five minutes-if they do not it will mean that more people can get in-and they do not have to take interventions.

Jackie Doyle-Price: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who made her case with great passion, as I think all Members would agree. It is important that we consider the whole issue of indebtedness, which has become a plague on our country and will only get worse as time moves on. We all want appropriate measures in place to protect those who rely on credit from the activities of unscrupulous lenders. I bring some knowledge to this subject, having worked in a previous life as an adviser to the Financial Services Consumer Panel. We have long been concerned about the inadequacy of the current framework of consumer credit regulation, so now is clearly the appropriate time for change.
	Although I fully support the objective behind the hon. Lady's motion-ensuring that there is adequate regulatory protection for consumers and that regulators have adequate powers to intervene as appropriate-I am not sure whether the caps that she describes are necessarily the answer. However, it is appropriate that we consider the whole breadth of how credit is regulated as part of the credit review. We should leave no stone unturned in ensuring that the regulator has the appropriate tools and, more importantly, the appetite to take enforcement action where poor practice is identified. I was therefore happy to put my name to the amendment.

John Pugh: I assume that as the amendment has been tabled by Back Benchers to another Back Bencher's motion, the Whips will take no part whatever in persuading people to vote for or against it. Am I right in making that assumption?

Jackie Doyle-Price: What the Whips choose to do is entirely a matter for them, but I wish to support the amendment rather than the motion because the motion is too prescriptive. We have seen credit providers be very innovative in finding their way around regulatory obligations, so we should not be too prescriptive. If we introduce obligations on providers to treat their customers fairly and lend responsibly, and obligations on the regulators to be prepared to use their judgment to intervene, we will not need to rely on price-prescriptive caps, which might impede our ability to take action against bad providers.

Cathy Jamieson: Does the hon. Lady agree that the nature of the problem means that urgent action is needed? Her point that providers are good at getting around obligations means that a very strong signal from Government is needed, which suggests that we should support more prescriptive measures.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I believe that that actually makes the case for the early introduction of the consumer protection and markets authority proposed as part of our reforms to the tripartite regulation system. At the moment, we have a consumer credit system regulated by the OFT, in which the tools available are not very effective. With the reforms to the tripartite system, we have a great opportunity to state that we expect the new authority to take real action. In the past there has been a lot of, "Oh dear, isn't this terrible?" and a lot of wringing of hands from regulators, but they have had no real ability to stop poor providers doing business or to give them appropriate penalties. That is what we want to see from the reform of the regulatory system.
	One reason why many consumers find themselves in punitive agreements is that often, deals are marketed in terms of the cost per week, so they do not necessarily understand exactly how much they will pay for their credit. That practice is not just restricted to doorstep lenders and loan sharks, because all too often we see it on our high streets, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned.
	I wish to draw attention to one particular organisation, a company called BrightHouse. There is a branch on High street in Grays, and I thought I would do a bit of price comparison. At the moment, it is advertising a nice, attractive 46-inch LED television that currently retails at £849 in Currys. BrightHouse is retailing it at £1,478.11, but it quotes a weekly payment of £13.64. On the face of it that sounds affordable, but ultimately the customer will pay a total of £2,127.84 for the product-two and a half times the price that they would pay in a normal high street store. That is why we need to consider extending affordable credit provisions more widely, so that consumers are not ripped off by such companies.

Damian Hinds: Does my hon. Friend agree that in such rent-to-own cases, the annual percentage rate advertised may well be shown as 29.9%, which is in fact the cost of the credit, but the grey pricing means that the sticker price is elevated? That highlights exactly how companies try to get around whatever measures are put in place, even if they are very sophisticated.

Jackie Doyle-Price: That is why we must avoid being prescriptive about how we tackle the problem. We can make rules, but firms will find ways of getting around them. We could put in place an overarching obligation for the regulator to say, "We will take action when we think something is not fair", and we will be able to point out that such practice is not fair by any stretch of the imagination. However, we need to set that expectation for the regulator-that it will take action when unfair activities take place.
	The hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned affordable credit. Ultimately, we will not tackle the problems until more affordable credit is available. With that in mind, I should like to ask what more the Government can do to establish and foster the growth of credit unions and to think in a big society way.

Sheila Gilmore: In the light of the hon. Lady's support for affordable credit, will she put pressure on the Government to extend the life of the growth fund?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I was about to say that I am asking the Government to think in a big society way about what they can do to encourage the growth of credit unions. It would be nice if Opposition Members allowed Government Members to make our case, because we have as much to advance on this subject as they have.
	I pay tribute to my local borough council, which has welcomed Essex Savers credit union into its civic offices and other properties that it owns and manages. I encourage the Government to consider what facilities it could offer to credit unions-post offices were mentioned, but we could also use jobcentres. That would give credit unions access to more savings, and they would therefore be able to make more loans. I have now run out of time, but I hope the Minister takes that on board.

Susan Elan Jones: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for her sterling and tireless work. I also pay tribute to the cross-party support for her motion and the widespread support from groups that I do not believe have ever spoken to each other before, which shows the strength of feeling.
	I am speaking today because of a constituent on income support who went to BrightHouse and was told it was fine for them to buy any item, however expensive it was and whatever the rates they would have to pay back. I am here for the couple with children who lost their house through redundancy. As well as very large mortgage-related debts, they must pay 10 other debts, including five from credit cards, all of which are spiralling out of control, to a total of £37,000. That is the tip of the iceberg in just one constituency. Citizens Advice informs me that in my constituency-just one constituency in one part of the country-it is dealing with work relating to debts in excess of £2 million. That cannot be right, which is why I believe we have such a consensus.
	Just before Christmas, I received a nice, handwritten card in the flat that I rent in Vauxhall. The nice person who signed it told me that I could get £300 immediately. The only problem was that the annual percentage rate was 272%, which would mean that I would have to repay £546. Six companies control 90% of that market in the UK. That is scandalous. New Members received £4,000 loans for office items. What would they think about paying back £7,280? Perhaps I should not have said that quite so loudly-people writing about this debate might think that it is an excellent idea. Seriously, however, that is the problem facing the poorest communities in our country today.
	The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) compared prices between an electronics supplier and BrightHouse. In Argos it is possible to buy a 60 cm double oven for just under £280, but the total after interest for the same item in BrightHouse is almost £590. That is nonsense-it is immoral and it must be stopped.
	I should like to deal briefly with credit rates, which hon. Members have mentioned. Some say that if we act, there is a possibility that people might go elsewhere to access credit. I understand that, but I cannot see too many of my constituents in north Wales heading to Manchester airport to take the next flight to New York on the off chance that they can get cheaper credit there.
	The movement for action is growing globally, including in this country. It is tremendous that we are seeing widespread, cross-party support, and support throughout business and civic society. I commend the motion and hope it wins support. I also hope the Government put behind them whatever qualms they may have had, because this matters in our constituencies, whatever parties we represent, and whatever part of the country we come from. The motion will make a difference to the poorest members of our society. It is right and moral, and we should take action.

Nigel Evans: Thank you for your brevity.

Duncan Hames: I should first declare an interest as a member of the West Wilts credit union.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who has done so much to raise the profile of this issue in the matter of months since we have been in the House, and all Back Benchers who helped to secure this timely and important debate. I also acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Minister has an admirable track record on financial inclusion that is far longer than mine.
	I understand that the Government seek to make policy on the basis of strong evidence and wide consultation, and that my hon. Friend must properly consider all the submissions that his Department receives. However, I have long been clear in my mind as to the moral imperative for action, as well as to the practical case for certain caps on the total cost of borrowing.
	Back at the hustings meeting at which I was first selected as the Liberal Democrat candidate for Chippenham, I was asked this popular and well worn question: "If you could make any new law, what would it be?" I said that I would cap the cost of consumer lending. I am not generally inclined- [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members who are looking to establish some consensus in the House would do well to welcome those who support the motion. As I said, I am not generally inclined to rely on new laws and regulations, but it seems to me that capping the cost of consumer lending would be a suitable exception.
	High-cost consumer credit works for some people. It can provide a useful bridge across a difficult period. Some consumers use such services in a fully informed and responsible manner and derive benefit from them. However, I also see too many of my constituents caught up in vicious cycles of debt and trapped by unscrupulous and irresponsible lending.
	It can be particularly difficult for people to resist taking on further unaffordable borrowing when a representative of the lender is in their home, seemingly innocently chatting about what will get them through Christmas or a child's birthday. Those tactics will be familiar to colleagues across the House from their surgeries and casework. In my view, they are exploitative.
	In advance of this debate, I was contacted by Glenis Ansell, a financial inclusion officer from Wiltshire's Community First, who works with constituents of mine in Chippenham. Through the Wiltshire Money Line, she works closely with the county's four credit unions and its housing associations to deliver responsible and reasonable lending to local people. That is an excellent example of efforts to expand access to affordable credit, which we are calling for in both the motion and the amendment. Last year, they saved £250,000 in interest payments alone, and I commend them for their work.
	In her work, Glenis sees first hand the appalling toll taken on some vulnerable people, who are targeted by doorstep lenders. She reports cases in which vulnerable adults become too scared to open their own front doors for fear that they will be confronted again by agents demanding repayment. She put to me this perfectly straightforward question: what protection is there for vulnerable people who are targeted by legal but unscrupulous lenders? I hope the Minister answers that for her today.
	A range of caps on the total cost of loans would go some way to addressing that very point. I am aware that the Government have some anxieties about prejudging the outcome of their consultation, but I would not want those anxieties to prevent the House from taking a positive view towards the proposed cost-of-credit caps. I therefore intend to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).

Ian Lavery: I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate today. There can be no doubt that there is a real need to tackle the uncompetitive nature of this market and protect individuals and families from excessive interest rates and charges by increasing access to affordable credit. The Consumer Credit (Regulation and Advice) Bill will provide an opportunity to make progress on these matters.
	Like many other areas of the UK, my constituency of Wansbeck is suffering greatly from the effects of the worldwide global recession. Since the start of the recession, mainstream lenders such as high street banks have been much less willing to lend money. It is estimated that approximately 5 million to 7 million people in Britain are denied credit either because they do not have a bank account or because they have no credit history. This leaves more and more people in Wansbeck and beyond with only the option of unsecured lending such as payday, doorstep and hire purchase lenders. It is estimated that more than 1.2 million people use the payday lending market-a staggering fourfold increase since the start of the recession-and more than 3 million use the home credit market. Furthermore, rising unemployment, housing costs and VAT could leave numerous families struggling to make ends meet, which would add to the problems they face.
	However, it is still relatively easy for anyone to run up substantial debts, and tragically people end up with debts they cannot deal with or service. It was recently reported that the people of the United Kingdom are well over £1 trillion in personal debt, and personal insolvency in the UK has reached record levels.

Robert Flello: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ian Lavery: I would prefer not to, as I have only five minutes.
	As always, the most vulnerable members of society are hit the hardest, and people on low incomes or in receipt of benefits are left to the mercy of non-mainstream loans- payday, home credit or pawnbroking. Currently, six lenders account for 90% of the home credit market and there is little competition to drive interest rates down. The lack of competition keeps rates artificially high, with the most vulnerable having to pay the price-literally. The APR for payday lenders often begins at 600% and can escalate to 2,500% or more. Home credit lenders, who make home visits in order to collect repayments for their short-term loans, can charge £82 in interest and collection charges for every £100 lent.
	It is not surprising that families turn to illegal loan sharks for help to tackle their immediate financial problems. At this stage it is worth remembering that the coalition Government's solution to the heinous problems with loan sharks in the north-east was to scrap the north-east illegal money lending team. In addition, the coalition shows no appetite to clamp down on excessive interest rates and loan costs-it is clearly out of touch with ordinary people and their problems.
	In Wansbeck, the local citizens advice bureau is doing its best to provide good quality debt advice services, but the withdrawal of finance and the reduction in staff numbers are causing real problems. There are some 900 clients in Wansbeck alone, dealing with £10 million of debt. The casework is increasing as the manpower reduces.
	If we are to help and protect my constituents and others like them we need to make progress on two fronts. We have to tackle both illegal and legal loan sharking. At the same time, we need to increase access to other, more affordable forms of credit. We need to improve access to credit unions in Britain, but credit unions in Wansbeck have had their funding reduced. I remind the Deputy Prime Minister and his fellow Ministers that they signed an early-day motion in 2005 that called for action on interest rates charged by doorstep lenders, but they have taken no action now that they are in government and in a position to do so.

Justin Tomlinson: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the request from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and me for this debate. There is true cross-party support for this-more than 40 Members from different political parties supported us-and we were delighted to secure this three-hour debate. I am pleased that so many want to speak, which shows a real desire to make a difference on this crucial issue.
	Many hon. Members will set out compelling reasons for the importance of this issue from their individual casework. Organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux say that 60% of their work is dealing with financial difficulties. It is surely better to tackle the problem at the source, but all too often consumers are simply not equipped to make informed decisions. It is the high-cost lenders who take advantage.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend and I organised a debt awareness day in Swindon, where we found an alarming lack of knowledge, including people thinking that the APR was the be-all and end-all and not realising that the total package could be dramatically more expensive. The motion addresses that problem.

Justin Tomlinson: My hon. Friend is spot on, and all too often we find that consumers are simply not equipped to make informed decisions.
	It is suggested that total cost caps are the solution, and I support the principle. Surely there is an unequivocal case for saying that for borrowing X amount, there should be an absolute limit on the sum to be paid back. We should protect consumers from the very worst.
	The motion is 99% there, but the amendment expresses a slight hesitation. There is still a nervousness, because whatever we do will have consequences. When organisations such as Consumer Focus and MoneySavingExpert, which is run by Martin Lewis, say that we must be mindful of possible consequences, it is right and proper that we should take a measured and detailed look at the issue to ensure that the consequences are thought out. The evidence is inconclusive-

Bill Esterson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the consequences, but the evidence from Members on both sides of the House suggests the problem is with the difference between voluntary and mandatory regulation. Unless enforced, the regulation just will not happen.

Justin Tomlinson: That is why I support the principle, but-as the hon. Member for Walthamstow said-it is essential that we make things better, not worse. We should not rush in if we have not considered all the consequences. However, we need to act urgently and, crucially, with a desire to find a workable form of total cost caps. For those people who say that additional regulation would push people into the hands of the illegal loan sharks or that extra action will damage our case for protecting vulnerable consumers, I point out that we have just seen significant changes to the credit card industry that have not affected people's access to credit cards. We should not fear that the market would collapse.
	I urge the Minister to look into the sales techniques of doorstep lending. They include nudge-nudge techniques that encourage people to take on expensive, long-term debt. Such lenders concentrate on having relationship managers who go into the homes of the consumers. They argue that that helps them to assess whether the consumer can afford to borrow more money. The relationship manager has a cup of tea and a chat. They might ask, "Christmas is coming up, have you made plans for that?" The consumer says that her children want the latest expensive toy, and the representative offers to lend some money-at a high cost. The consumer is nudged into a long-term cycle of debt, and that is one of the most important areas to consider.
	My flagship issue is financial education, which is included in the motion. I launched the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people on Monday, with my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow as vice chairs. Some 171 MPs have signed up and it is supported by the Personal Finance Education Group and Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert. I am grateful for that support, as it is unbelievably important that we have savvy consumers who understand that they can shop around and are equipped to make informed decisions.
	There is an incredibly strong case for making the costs more transparent, and it is another reason why total cost caps are so important. All too often, people judge a debt on the APR. There are many issues with high APRs, but there are extra charges as well, which is why the crude cap on interest rates alone was previously rejected. There should be a cap on everything. That would also allow consumers to make good comparisons.
	I know that some hon. Members will criticise organisations such as Wonga.com, but I have to give it some credit, because of all the organisations that have lobbied me, it is the only one that has said, "We will work with whatever changes are put in place." That should mean clear, understandable and transparent costs-I would support that. However, we cannot just look at APR. Part of Martin Lewis's financial training for me was the following good example: if someone takes out £3,000 on a credit card at the age of 19 on a typical APR of 17.9% and makes only the minimum payments, they will not clear that debt until they are 60 years old. Although the 17.9% does not look too bad, there are long-term implications, which again supports the principle of total cost capping, showing all the costs, including what it will really cost over the lifetime of the debt.
	I fully support any measures to give greater access to credit unions. Being conscious of the time, I will simply bow to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for championing this subject in Parliament. I urge the Minister to take that on board, as well as the need to make available greater access to social funds, in particular by allowing greater flexibility in emergencies. All too often, the need to acquire debt is a result either of consumers wanting something now rather than later or of sudden changes in circumstances. We need to be in a position to help out those in the latter situation.
	Finally, I want to address the principle of the savings culture in this country. The hon. Member for Walthamstow talked about how we have the lowest savings rates and the highest levels of debt. That is this nation-we have an insatiable appetite to buy now and pay later. Over the long term we need to change that, because where possible people need to have a savings buffer for changes in circumstances. So I urge the Minister to consider all the different options proposed. We have cross-party support for the principle. I am sorry that there is an amendment to the motion, because it will take up time in the Division Lobbies, but we are 99.9% there. The question is how we do this. However, we need to consider all the consequences, and I have every faith that we will be able to make a difference for the people who need our help the most.

Jonathan Edwards: I rise to speak in favour of the motion. As a former policy officer for Citizens Advice Cymru-before my election to this place-I was able to see how the nature of the advice issues dealt with by the citizens advice bureaux in our communities changed dramatically during the second half of the previous decade. Although welfare benefit issues had previously been the staple diet of bureaux, personal debt cases rapidly became the largest single issue dealt with by advisers, totalling well over a third of all client issues. Citizens Advice client figures offer a detailed insight into the social problems faced by communities across the UK, and the latest quarterly figures for Wales are sobering. Total client inquiries over the year totalled nearly 390,000-a year-on-year increase of 19%, of which debt-related cases totalled more than 134,000, which was an incredible 37% of all cases and an increase of 14% on the previous year.
	There is always a lag between the true human cost of any recession and a return to economic growth, and things will certainly get much worse before they get better. The current fiscal policy of the UK Government will, I am afraid, only exacerbate matters. The economic record of the previous UK Government has rightly been criticised for the manner in which the public finances were allowed to run out of control, but the manner in which consumer debt was allowed to rocket has received little attention. Consumer debt in the UK lies at around £1.4 trillion-a sum equivalent to 100% of the UK's total annual economic output. To put this in context, in 1997 combined personal debt stood at about £500 billion. It is an incredible figure that will be a significant economic headwind for the future.
	There is a great social crisis facing communities across the UK, and the UK Government cannot stand idly by. We need a comprehensive solution involving regulation of the high-interest lending market. However, central and devolved Governments also need to work together to put in place a package of support and educational services to deal with acute debt problems as well ensuring that financial capability is increased among the wider community. We welcome the decision of the UK Government to regulate the excessive interest rates of credit and store cards, but there are no plans to intervene in the high-interest lending market involving payday loans, pawnbrokers, doorstep lenders, mail-order cheque-cashing agencies and high street alternatives such as Oakam.
	My predecessor, Adam Price, introduced a ten-minute rule Bill-the Interest Rates (Limits on Charges) Bill-that would have introduced a capping structure with the aim of achieving the ambitions of the motion we are debating today. People who rely on these sorts of products are often extremely vulnerable and on low incomes, and face interest charges of up to 2,500%. It is exploitation at its worst, and the lax regime that currently exists in the UK is indefensible. These sorts of business models were pioneered in the US, but in the land of the free there has been a backlash: 15 states have prohibited payday lending, and 35 states have introduced interest caps. Furthermore, in Europe, as we have heard, 14 countries have some sort of capping structure.
	I would like to touch briefly on the issue of debt management plans, and the need for the sector to be subject to robust statutory regulation, including-at the very least-a cap on fees for the debt advice they offer, and subject to an independent audit funded by themselves.

Nia Griffith: Why is the hon. Gentleman's party attacking Communities First, which has done some very good work on providing debt advice? Why is it suggesting that it should no longer receive funding from the Welsh Assembly Government?

Jonathan Edwards: I am afraid that I have no idea what the hon. Lady is talking about-perhaps we can discuss it another time.
	One of the growth industries of the recession involved advice sharks, who exploit the human misery caused by the downturn. On a fee basis, individuals and families find themselves signing up for expensive debt management schemes, which only increase their problems. It is estimated that in 2010 companies would have amassed fees in excess of £250 million, often on an up-front basis and with consumers encouraged to take out further credit to pay for these fees. These matters are being considered as part of the consumer credit and insolvency review. However, we need urgent action now to protect consumers, and I would urge Ministers to act with haste.
	To close, I would like to congratulate the Welsh Government on some of their exciting initiatives. The creation of the Welsh financial education unit is a step towards ensuring that future generations are more financially literate. The all-Wales lending unit is at the forefront of the fight against illegal lending in my country, and an all-Wales coverage of credit unions to provide alternative affordable lending is much to be welcomed. However, I would urge more ambition in my own country-by rolling out interest-free JAK-banking-like products in our credit unions, and through the creation of a national money advice service made up of existing providers and based on the excellent money advice and budgeting service in the Republic of Ireland.

Andrew Bingham: I support wholeheartedly the principle of this debate. As the world changes, so does the way we do many things-and none more so than the way we can borrow money. In days gone by, there were usually only two ways of borrowing money-through a bank or, for a mortgage, a building society. Things are very different nowadays.
	Anyone who has spent time watching daytime television-I had the misfortune to do so when I was ill several years ago-will be struck by the number of adverts offering quick and easy solutions to money shortages. They are everywhere, whether it be the array of "where there's blame there's a claim" law firms offering redress by way of riches, which is something about which I have a strong view-but that might be for another day-cash-for-gold schemes or guided bankruptcy proceedings to escape debts that are already out of control. However, the most prevalent are the offers of loans. Pictures of happy smiling families delighted by the consolidation of their debts under increasing finance are rife. Loan companies with their own television channels promise untold happiness if a person calls them to borrow more and more money. Indeed, some adverts only just stop short of saying, "You can now borrow enough money to get completely out of debt."
	The latest method of debt marketing is the provision of payday loans, lending money at over 1,000%, and companies offering this type of loan are flourishing-they are everywhere. As the motion states, £7.5 billion was lent to low and middle income earners in 2008 alone. It is easy-to-obtain credit, but is frighteningly expensive to service the debt. These company names are becoming as familiar as the old banks and building societies, as they appear not just on televisions but on premier league football shirts, advertising hoardings up and down the country and in various newspapers. I am sure that we have all received many emails offering us loans.
	I trust, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will be unlikely to need a payday loan, but if you did and you did a Google search for UK payday loans, your search would yield some 9.8 million hits. If you wished to spare yourself the inconvenience of a credit check, you would still have almost 2 million hits from which to choose.
	"Neither a borrower nor a lender be" was, in days gone by, an idealist maxim, but most of us incur debt in some form or another over our lives. At this point, I will resist chiding Labour over its policies on national debt. The ability to repay should be the first consideration for anyone entering into any credit agreement. For the man in the street, however, that is becoming harder and harder to do as the lending methods become ever more varied and complicated. Working out exactly how much has to be paid back on any loan is becoming more and more difficult, as is being able to compare it to other offers.

Karl Turner: I agree with an awful lot of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I wonder whether he shares my concern at the Government's scrapping of the financial inclusion fund. Around 50% of the advice that my citizens advice bureau gives is on debt management, and it tells me that that will stop as a direct result of the Government's policy.

Andrew Bingham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I think that we are trying to get some cross-party agreement here. Can we try to deal with the issue of debt and work together on this instead of indulging in political arguments?
	I would like to talk about financial education in schools, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has also mentioned. A good education teaches children about the past and prepares them for their future. In a world where debt has become vital to so many important milestones in life, it is right that we should help our children to understand how to budget and how to negotiate their way around credit agreements. I was at the launch event for the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people, and I would like to pay tribute to those who set it up. A huge number of MPs were present. Teaching financial matters in schools could be the saviour of many people in years to come, but it will not help adults today. At the launch of the all-party group, Martin Lewis of moneysavingexpert.com spoke with eloquence and passion about his concern at the mountain of debt that people are accumulating, unaware of the consequences of their actions and with little or no comprehension of their total debt liability. Mr Lewis's concerns are supported by a constituent of mine in the High Peak, who wrote to me about a loan that he took out eight years ago. After eight years of making all payments in full without a single default, he has still not paid back a penny of the principal sum. Indeed, to discharge the loan after eight years, he still had to pay more than 100% of the original amount that he borrowed.
	I am not an advocate of legislating at every opportunity. I believe that, through education, we can help people to make informed choices. I support the amendment urging regulators to consider putting in place certain regulatory powers, which would give them the chance to act. However, we too might eventually have to consider taking action against those lenders who operate in a way that is unfair and exploitative, and who offer seductive products in a way that does not explain their consequences for those who sign up to them. A requirement to publish a total lending cost figure for each loan, which could be used as a yardstick by which a lender's offer can be judged, is in my view a sensible step. In that way, the high-cost credit lenders would flounder because the market would send them down, and the sensible, sustainable methods of credit and the people who offer them would survive, for the good of all.

Jenny Chapman: The United Kingdom is lagging behind on the regulation of consumer credit. The UK's poorest borrowers pay the highest price for credit in Europe. Fifteen American states have now dealt with payday loans, and the cost of credit is also capped for all US servicemen and women. Even President Bush could see that his soldiers needed protecting from excessive interest and administrative charges. In the United States, the Centre for Responsible Lending estimates that credit regulation saved consumers $2 billion in 2009. We know that payday loans frequently leave borrowers unable to pay other debts.
	Much is made by the industry of the possible unintended consequences of regulating payday loans, but research such as that from the university of North Carolina shows that restrictions on payday loans had no significant impact on the availability of credit for households in North Carolina. In fact, more than twice as many former payday borrowers reported that the absence of payday lending had had a positive rather than negative effect on their household. The state's regulation helped more households than it harmed.

Bill Esterson: My constituent, Mark Billard, wrote to me recently. He said:
	"Most US states and European countries have a legal limit to stop lenders charging whatever they want."
	That point has also been very well made by my hon. Friend. Does she agree that the danger of the amendment is that it would reduce the chances of such legal protection for those most in need of help?

Jenny Chapman: My objection to the amendment is that this is a Back-Bench debate, and it should be an opportunity for Back Benchers to express their views.
	The New Economics Foundation published a report in 2008 that included evidence that restricting payday loans did not push people into illegal borrowing. Rather, the market for affordable loans actually strengthened in such circumstances. In America, small mainstream loans for less than $600 became more widely available following a clampdown on payday lending, as aggressive marketing by payday lenders disappeared.
	We have heard it argued that caps on credit in France and Germany have led to reduced access to credit for the least well off, but that argument rests on evidence from a narrow base of research. In fact, restrictions on access to all kinds of credit vary between Britain and other European countries. It is argued that borrowers know what they are doing and should jolly well live with the consequences, but the individuals getting into trouble with these loans are desperate. They are not in a position to shop around. Their problems, as well as their credit, are compounded until they are no longer able to cope.

Richard Bacon: The hon. Lady is making an interesting case. Does she agree that borrowers often do not know what they are doing, and that it is our job, as elected Members, to protect not the moneylenders but our constituents? Does she also agree that the motion, for which I have a lot of admiration, and the amendment suffer from one problem-namely, the assumption that the regulator will be able to solve the problem? Does not the evidence from a whole variety of regulators, including Ofcom, Ofgem, Ofwat and the Charities Commission, suggest that regulators are far too often wet and useless? Would it not be much better to put these powers-which should be draconian, but exercised with the judgment of Solomon-in the hands of a feisty Back Bencher? May I suggest the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for the role?

Jenny Chapman: The only kind of regulation that is really going to get to the nub of the problem is the one that caps the cost.
	To argue that high-cost loans are necessary simply cements the market dominance of high-cost lenders and, worse, cements endemic poverty. The industry is seeking asylum in the under-regulated UK market, having been forced out of certain American states and parts of Europe. Other countries are getting a grip on the problem. The debt industry is resisting regulation, claiming that it has the best interests of its customers at heart. I am afraid that that simply will not wash.
	The motion before the House does not propose to outlaw short-term lending or impose a cap on APRs. It simply asks the Government to agree to curb the worst excesses of the credit and debt industry. The Office of Fair Trading recognises that there are problems with this market, and it is beginning to regulate more closely. But the regulation that counts, the one that will actually make a difference, is the one that cuts the cost. There are many problems with this market, but the biggest problem for consumers is the spiralling cost of the loans. Loans are rolled over and charges are added until they become not an occasional crutch but the only means of getting by. Consumers become trapped in a cycle of debt. How different this reality is from the fun, free-and-easy way in which high-cost lenders and debt management companies market their products.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has explained carefully that the motion attempts to bring about a cap not on the APR but rather on the total cost of credit. The motion does not prescribe a particular cap or propose anything that might cause credit to be unavailable to those who need it. The motion has been carefully crafted to bring about a limit on the overall costs. It does not propose a requirement for a new regulatory body and it will not close down short-term lending.
	The motion does not condemn debt. Debt is a necessary part of modern life. It enables us to get married, to go to university and to buy a house or a car. It gets many people through life's emergencies, such as a broken washing machine or unexpected travel, but it is not right that those least able to afford high charges, those who are in desperate situations and unlikely to shop around, should have to pay the most.
	We know that people are deliberately targeted by high-cost lenders in their marketing and are enticed into taking loans they cannot afford. These are the people for whom the normalisation of high-cost lending has the cruellest consequences. Time is up for the worst of these expensive loans. It is up to this House to tell the Government it wants to change the rules.
	Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the sterling work of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on this issue. She has demonstrated how the at times confusing procedures of this House can be effectively used to bring forward an important issue and, if good sense prevails, to make a difference. Her tenacity goes to prove that it is always a mistake to confuse gentleness with weakness.
	Our concern for this issue is not borne of soft naivety, but from seeing first hand the effects on the lives of our constituents of these exploitative charges for borrowing. I commend this motion to the House.

Robin Walker: I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out
	"alongside measures to increase access to affordable credit, regulatory powers that put"
	and insert
	"measures to increase access to affordable credit; urges regulators to consider putting".
	The amendment stands in the name of more than 20 other Back Benchers, and I am grateful to the many distinguished Back Benchers from different parties for their support and to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
	I move this amendment in support of the excellent motion of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and I congratulate her on the passionate campaign she has led to secure this debate and on the meticulous research that underpins her motion today and her speech. I support her campaign for better financial education, and I was delighted to become a founder member of the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people, along with her and many other Members, when it was launched by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who has seconded this amendment.
	We are debating a motion that I personally would be prepared to support in its entirety, but which, through a small change, I hope will win even greater support from both sides of the Chamber. The purpose of the amendment is to set forth clearly the opinion of this whole House-and in particular of Back Benchers from every party-on such an important matter and to support the call for action on the cost of credit and the means by which the hon. Lady has called for action with a range of caps, but also to clarify that the answer is not necessarily new regulatory powers. I move this amendment as a result of concerns raised with me both by constituents and by fellow Back Benchers that one aspect of the motion could see it defeated were it left unchanged. I think this is too important a matter to allow that to happen.
	The amendment protects the wording that calls on the Government to increase access to affordable credit. It is absolutely right that the Government should act in this area; that is a point from which I think few would demur. I have had some involvement in two significant initiatives that the Government are already taking on this front. They are initiatives that benefit many people in my constituency of Worcester. I have spoken in this House before about the importance of the move to bring credit unions into the post office network, and I know that the Black Pear credit union in Worcester is anxious that this measure be brought forward as soon as possible. Like the hon. Lady, I have campaigned on my high street, in my case leafleting for this credit union. I am glad to be able to say that Labour councillors in Worcester do the same. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the Government of the urgency of the need for progress on this matter and of the revitalising effect that this step could have for both our credit unions and our post offices.
	The second organisation that I wish to mention in this context is My Home Finance, whose shop in Worcester I was delighted to open just before Christmas. It is supported by local housing associations including Sanctuary Housing, Nexus Housing and Worcester Community Housing, and it is backed by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Royal Bank of Scotland. This great new initiative provides loans directly to people's bank accounts at an APR of 29.9%, compared with typical doorstep loans of 272% or loan shark rates with APRs in the thousands. Moves such as these that are already under way reflect the priority which the Government are already giving to increasing access to affordable credit, but I have no reservations in calling on the Government to do still more.
	What I and many other Back Benchers on the Government Benches feel uncomfortable supporting is the call to create new regulatory powers at this moment in time. We will hear many arguments in this debate about the effect of capping rates. Some will argue, as I do, that some form of flexible capping is not only attractive but morally right, while others will warn of the perils of driving people out of the regulated market altogether and into the hands of loan sharks. The hon. Member for Walthamstow has suggested an elegant solution in her form of words in the motion, taking account of the need to balance access with price and providing a degree of flexibility, but even this formulation requires the Government to introduce new regulatory powers.
	Many of my colleagues on the Government Benches are allergic to increasing regulation, and all of us would like to see better, rather than more, regulation accepted as a general principle of government. I and many other Members fear that for the Government to create new regulatory powers in this area at this moment could be a mistake. To regulate without a very careful analysis of the market would carry great risks and, as so often happened in the past, such regulation could have unintended consequences.

Chuka Umunna: I noted the wording in the hon. Gentleman's amendment. If we are to introduce further regulation, is now not the time to do it, given the Government's current big reforms of financial services in general in this country, some of which I support? I accept that regulation is not necessarily always the answer, but one of the problems with the financial services sector is that it can be very short-termist and has to take account primarily of maximising shareholder value through dividends and increasing share prices. To my mind that is precisely why, in this case, we need to have regulation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten us about why he thinks the sector can in this respect voluntarily bring itself to heel.

Robin Walker: I am very grateful for that intervention as it gives me time to make the next part of my speech, which is on that very subject. I am certainly not calling for self-regulation in this area. I am calling for the regulators to look at this.
	It is important to note that the Government have announced plans to create a new consumer protection and markets agency, whose focus will be squarely on protecting individuals and consumers. That will be a refreshing change from the vast and fragmented scope of the Financial Services Agency. Such an agency would be ideally placed to consider this matter and to work closely with consumers and the industry to find the best way to deliver a range of caps on prices, balancing the needs of access to credit with those of price. Without that regulator in place, I believe it would be a mistake to create new regulatory powers subjecting such an important matter to the change and disruption inevitably entailed in a handover of responsibilities: far better that we clearly indicate the will of this House that regulators must consider these matters and take them seriously.
	I return to the fact that I support this motion. Like many other Back Benchers of all parties, I want to see action taken to cap the cost of credit. I am deeply concerned about the levels of interest charged for payday lending and want to do everything I can to protect my constituents from loan sharks.

Rachel Reeves: The constituent who came to see me at my surgery last week because she could not sleep at night because of the payday loans and the interest rates charged urged me to vote for today's motion. She will see no benefit from urging the regulator to consider introducing caps. She will see benefit only from those caps being introduced.

Robin Walker: I am afraid I disagree. The caps have to be introduced in the right way. The best way for the Government to take action on this is to drive forward access to credit, improve financial education and encourage a genuinely competitive market in affordable credit. I support the suggestion that a range of caps should be given serious consideration but, in common with many other Back Benchers, oppose the creation of new regulatory powers at present. By accepting my amendment, the House can send a clear message of intent without sacrificing this worthy motion to complex arguments and ideological disputes on regulation. I believe that the amended motion would represent a clear expression of Back-Bench opinion from across the whole House, and I therefore commend it to the House.

Anas Sarwar: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing the debate. I agreed almost entirely with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) apart from the use of the descriptive term "gentleness". I think the emotions of passion and commitment were more apparent in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow.
	This is a timely debate, because we are still experiencing the effects of the worst global financial crisis in over 70 years, which plunged the global economy into its deepest recession. As a result, the finances of households throughout our country, especially those on low incomes, are balanced on a knife edge. Four out of 10 people in the UK are worried about their current level of debt, and with household debt set to increase according to the Government's own Office for Budget Responsibility, we need to do all we can to make sure that they do not go over the edge due to irresponsible and unfair lending.
	I am a supporter of both the Consumer Credit (Regulation and Advice) Bill and today's motion, because they seek better regulation of unfair lending practices in the marketplace, where disproportionately high interest rates or charges, and sometimes a combination of both, can be levied. Such a move would bring a welcome stop to short-term lenders charging wholly excessive APR rates, which people are often so shocked to read about. The highest I have found was on an infamous website only a couple of days ago that was providing a very modest APR of 4,200%. People often say that it is unfair and misleading to quote annualised rates for short-term credit, but even if we break it down to a weekly or monthly rate, they are by no means cheap. We also have to question what happens when a person experiencing financial hardship finds him or herself in an even more difficult situation and cannot make the agreed repayment date.
	No one is arguing for credit to be withheld from people who need it; what we are calling for is responsible lending, coupled with protection for vulnerable consumers, and an open and fair market. It is important not to single out short-term credit when dealing with unfair practices, but to deal with the market as a whole. That is another reason why I support the motion, as it encompasses all forms of lending and would include, for example, credit cards and store cards, the regulation of which the Government have already committed to. Quite significantly, what we are calling for would bring the situation in our country in line with what is increasingly becoming the position in other countries around the world, for example those in Europe and the United States, and even in some parts of India.
	I am also extremely pleased to see that the motion addresses the important issues of financial literacy and financial exclusion, which are the other half of the problem. In a recent Westminster Hall on bank account provision in Scotland, I illustrated the problems that financial literacy and financial exclusion can create. In a former life I was a dental practitioner-I am a glutton for punishment; what can I say? Our practice employed a new dental nurse who had no credit history at all. She did not have a driving licence, she was straight out of school and she had sadly lost her birth certificate, as her parents had had a messy separation. She was not able to open a simple bank account. Instead, every week she had to take her cheques to one of the local pawn shops and pay £3.50 just to get her weekly salary. That is a simple story, but the same situation affects a great number of people across the UK, and when they find themselves in need of credit, they often turn to short-term lenders. According to research, 5 million to 7 million people are denied credit either because they do not have a bank account or because they have no credit history.
	I admire credit unions, and I am a great believer in their work. Indeed, Glasgow has more credit unions and members than any other city in the United Kingdom, with 34 credit unions in total and more than 120,000 members, and financial asset portfolios of more than £170 million. Credit unions are grass-roots organisations that are truly community-led. However, what I admire most about them is that they actively work to improve the financial literacy of their members and tackle financial exclusion. It is in that context that they have an invaluable role to play in our country, because not only can they offer accessible financial services, but they could provide some of the financial education and debt management advice that so many need. I hope that the Government will look to invest more to expand the work of credit unions in the coming months.
	The Consumer Credit (Regulation and Advice) Bill and the motion before us represent an excellent opportunity to show that, during these tough economic times, we will look not only to protect the most vulnerable, but to bring about a cultural change in this country in our approach to savings and debt. I sincerely hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House give the motion and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow the support that they deserve.

Lorely Burt: Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and the excellent way in which she has promoted her cause today. Everyone here wants to see a fair and accessible system of credit provision. No one in the Chamber today wants to see loan sharks or other unscrupulous lenders continue.
	The coalition Government have begun a consultation on the best ways of achieving that. Personally, I am absolutely in favour of some form of regulation. There is no question about that. However, the problem is that calling on the Government to adopt caps now would pre-judge the outcome of the consultation, and I should know, because I withdrew my private Member's Bill on unfair charging for unauthorised overdrafts, as, although the Government were minded perhaps to support it, continuing with it would have prejudiced the outcomes. Therefore, although caps would ostensibly seem to be a reasonable way to stop excessive charging, we should examine them in the light of the evidence brought forward by the charities that support vulnerable people.
	I have spoken to debt advice agencies and charities that do not think that caps will work. Some warn that the imposition of caps would remove many lenders from the market and drive people who are desperate for cash into the arms of illegal loan sharks. The chairman of the Consumer Credit Counselling Service has said:
	"Interest...caps can harm people seeking this type of credit more than they help them."
	Another organisation, the Centre for Responsible Credit-one that I had not heard of before-has written to me to say that it disagrees, bringing to light a new European study. All those points must be looked at objectively. We have to think with our heads, not our hearts.

David Rutley: My hon. Friend makes some important points, and I completely understand the strength of opinion and the aim of trying to ensure that we have affordable credit. However, when I questioned Martin Lewis during his appearance before the Select Committee on Treasury, he said:
	"The main thing we could do to improve your regulations-to stop mis-selling, to have better informed consumers, to have more responsible borrowing, to penalise irresponsible lenders-would be to teach every child in school how finances work."
	We need to get the balance right in this debate when it comes to education, not just about credit, but about the importance of savings. Does she agree with those sentiments?

Lorely Burt: Yes, I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
	Many Opposition Members who have spoken in this debate are new, so I wonder whether I could gently remind them that the previous Government launched three inquiries into the problem, all of which cautioned against using caps.

Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has explicitly set out in her motion that we should have a cap not on interest rates, but on the overall cost of credit, so what the hon. Lady is talking about is not in the motion. Does she recognise that?

Lorely Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but no, I do not entirely recognise that, because I am not sure that she is distinguishing between what the two actually mean. I am not against what the hon. Member for Walthamstow is promoting, but I question her position. After 13 years-13 years in which her Government gave the matter due consideration and in which her party had an unquestionable desire to help-she seeks to introduce something now, in the middle of a Government consultation, when she knows that the Government cannot commit themselves in case they prejudice the consultation.

Stella Creasy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lorely Burt: I will, but the hon. Lady should please be brief.

Stella Creasy: I just want to check that the hon. Lady understands that this is a Backbench Business Committee debate, so in theory Back Benchers could take a position that is different from that of the Government. If the Government were concerned about the consultation, they could abstain from the vote, thereby protecting themselves against any question of judicial review, whereas Back Benchers are free to express an opinion. Does she not agree?

Lorely Burt: Back in the real world, we do not want to abstain. We-the Government-want to support her proposition, so I am disappointed that she is taking the view she has.
	We cannot accuse the Government of doing nothing. This week the consumer credit directive came into force, enforcing a 14-day cooling-off period. We have also increased the money going into catching, prosecuting and imprisoning loan sharks-these pariahs who feast on the misery of the desperate. The illegal money-lending teams are doing a great job and have been very effective, and we have also launched the consultation-the one that the hon. Lady does not seem to be interested in acknowledging.

Mark Durkan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lorely Burt: I am sorry, but I cannot any more.
	I, too, am impatient to see help for vulnerable indebted people, but there are other things that we could be doing. When the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading merge into one regulator, one option could be to give that newly-formed body the power to introduce caps if it felt them to be appropriate. Another option that I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider is the use of the post office network as a method of access for credit unions, especially as the Government have halted Labour's closure programme.
	The amendment, which I tabled along with the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) and other Back Benchers, retains all the good aspects of the motion without committing the Government to any course before the end of the consultation. I urge Opposition Members to support the amendment, so that we as a Parliament can work together to end this scourge, with our heads as well as our hearts.

Teresa Pearce: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) for tabling the motion.
	Let me begin by putting the record straight. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow was not interested in consultation. In fact, she took part in this consultation.
	Incomes in my constituency are, on average, lower than those in other parts of London. Unemployment is higher, and the dole queue is lengthening. My constituents are only too well aware of the exploitative practices of the payday and door-to-door credit lenders, for they are the target audience of firms hoping to cash in on other people's misery. I believe that now is exactly the right time to propose a cap on the cost of credit. The recession means that mainstream banks are not lending, everyday costs are rising, wages are being pushed down, and the ranks of the unemployed are growing. Increasingly, payday and home credit lenders are becoming the only option for people who are struggling to make ends meet, but that option comes at a terrible price-a price that people may be paying year after year after year.
	The speech of the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) reminded me of an experience that is not part of my casework, but an actual case of mine. I recall that, when I was 21, my three-year-old daughter and I spent our first Christmas in decent housing after three years living in a slum dwelling with no bathroom. I wanted to buy a Christmas tree and some decorations, which would have cost about £10. It might as well have been £100, because I did not have £10.
	I have to ask myself this: if a door-to-door lender had offered me a £10 loan, would I have taken it? I probably would. Would that £10 have involved me in years of loan payback? It probably would. Would that have become a spiral of debt which would have meant that I would not be here now? Yes, it probably would. When people are living from week to week to the edge of every pound and penny, their lives can be thrown into crisis for the want of a new pair of shoes. It is such tipping points that can send their lives up or down. It is the ultimate game of snakes and ladders. I believe in giving people a ladder, and I think that the motion provides a key rung to help people out of the despair that comes with endless debt.
	Oakam and Wonga.com have stores and billboards across London offering payday loans, longer-term loans and emergency loans to people with poor credit ratings. The rates on those loans are staggering. Many of the companies that provide those loans hire only staff with second languages so that they can cynically and specifically target immigrant communities.
	It is the most vulnerable people who would be helped by a cap on the cost of credit. One in 10 UK payday customers has an annual income of less than £ll,000, and according to the UK's largest debt charity, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, one in eight of the people who asked it for help in the first half of last year was receiving jobseeker's allowance. I believe it is our responsibility to legislate, on behalf of those who sent us here, to protect people in such circumstances, and I hope that today we will see the political will that is necessary if we are to crack down on the companies who exploit them. I support the Consumer Credit (Regulation and Advice) Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, and I hope that it will be given its Second Reading in the House tomorrow. It seeks to improve access to more affordable versions of credit through, for instance, credit unions and the post office network.
	I am pleased that the motion recognises the problems of financial exclusion and the lack of financial and debt management education in this country. Along with more than 200 other Members, I recently joined the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). I hope that, through the work of that group, we can improve financial education in schools, and I hope that all its members will support the motion.
	While these measures may help, their impact will be minimal unless a range of non-competitive caps on credit in the unsecured lending market are also introduced. I urge Ministers to listen carefully to the debate, to recognise that the high-cost credit market is exploitative legal loan sharking, and to step in, do what Governments should do, and regulate accordingly by capping the cost of credit for the benefit of the most vulnerable people in constituencies such as mine and many others.

Damian Hinds: If hon. Members will forgive the pun, may I say that it is encouraging that there are such high levels of interest in this Chamber in this subject, particularly among the new intake? I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for their interest, which has been shown not only in this debate, but in the hon. Lady's private Member's Bill and the Westminster Hall debate, and in my hon. Friend's institution of the all-party group on financial education for young people. I commented at the time that, as so many people were crammed into the room, he had managed to make financial education for young people the new rock and roll.
	Almost all of us in this Chamber, wherever we are in the spectrum of belief in free market economics, conclude that something else needs to be done to curb the worst excesses in the credit market. A number of us also have examined the other countries in the world, both those in the European tradition, such as France, Germany and Italy, and those in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, such as Australia, Canada and most of the states in America, and asked, "Can they all be wrong?" Perhaps instead they are on to something in having some sort of usury ceiling and sensible credit limit.
	Any approach to this matter has to cover all the aspects of education, advice and this country's culture about debt, must include smart regulation that protects the most vulnerable, and must provide for proper alternatives, such as credit unions. They, in particular, have an important role to play, not only in providing affordable credit, but in encouraging the savings that a number of hon. Members have discussed.
	There are a couple of problems with the motion. First, it refers to various "caps on prices" without saying what that means. It is not clear whether that would be a cash or a percentage cap. When lenders talk about the total cost of credit, they normally refer to a cash figure, but I assume that the hon. Member for Walthamstow was referring to a percentage.

Chuka Umunna: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that a definition of the cap is not given would allow the regulator some form of flexibility in the event that it is required to take action?

Damian Hinds: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for being my minute man. That does create extra flexibility but we do need to know what we are talking about. A number of hon. Members have drawn a distinction between an interest rate cap and a cap that includes interest and other charges-that is what the annual percentage rate is; APR includes some other charges. It does not include behavioural charges, default charges and so on, and I do not understand mathematically-I am happy to take an intervention on this for a second minute-how they could be factored into a general cap that would apply to credit products extended to everybody, given that, by definition, behavioural and default charges are incurred only by some customers.
	Another problem with the motion is its emphasis on a lack of competitiveness, because that is not the problem in this area. I do not wish to be too pernickety, but I do not think that "many" lenders can be in a "near monopoly" position, as the motion suggests. In many ways, stimulating competitiveness further might end up being counter-productive, but in the three minutes available there is no chance of our discussing that aspect.
	This country is both blessed and cursed with a very diverse and dynamic consumer credit market. We are blessed because of the variety, where there is a product to suit just about every need in the market. Even payday lending can be very rational; it could be very rational for someone trying to avoid current account bounce charges to take out a payday loan instead. Very few people are excluded from the legal and, therefore, regulatable market altogether.
	We are cursed by this market because of the ubiquity of the messages about credit that people are bombarded with; the emphasis on what people want to borrow, rather than what they need or can afford to pay back; and the complexity involved. Even very highly educated people find it difficult to understand every product and every aspect of every product. I am sure that some Members of this House struggle, as I do, with understanding some aspects of some of these products.
	That complexity highlights one of the great difficulties with introducing new regulation, because companies make money in this market in lots of different ways. Rent-to-own companies, such as BrightHouse, which has been mentioned more than once in this debate, would almost certainly not be curtailed by any restriction on the cost of credit, because so much of the money they make is on the sticker price, relative to Argos or Currys, rather than on the charge for credit.
	I am running out of time already, so I had better hurry up. The experience in America suggests that where there is effective regulation of cash lending, other sectors such as rent-to-own or good old-fashioned catalogues are stimulated, and if there is a clamp down on interest rate charges, that will stimulate growth in behavioural charges and so on. Everybody in this House probably agrees that a blunt, general, across-the-board APR cap is not a good idea, so the challenge is whether we can come up with a regime that curbs the worst excesses of the market without putting entire segments and entire product categories out of the market, and that protects the most vulnerable. We need a regime that does not push them into the arms of illegal loan sharks-the sort of people for whom the idea of a late payment penalty is a cigarette burn to the forearm.

Justin Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is exactly why we should be considering all of the actions that need to be taken as part of the credit review, so that we can get a measured and sensible approach which means that we do not end up, by default, aiding the illegal loan sharks?

Damian Hinds: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. The amendment to the motion is very sensible and very welcome.
	Having a range of caps on different products in the market is one option for achieving the two aims I have just set out. However, the market is diverse and dynamic; the mention of the growth in payday lending in the motion is a good example of how the market keeps changing. In such a market, the danger of such an approach is that when certain categories are capped, there will be growth in different categories as people try to morph products and move into different areas of the market to avoid regulation.
	If caps are to be considered, one idea that I would like to throw into the mix for the Minister to consider is what I call a twin cap. Rather than having caps on different categories, we could set out a formula with a maximum rate of simple interest combined with a one-off percentage of the principal-for example, a 30% interest rate and a 15% arrangement fee. I suggest that structure because it more closely reflects the actual cost of providing loans. Shorter-term loans cost more to provide because there is a fixed-cost element for the initiation and completion of the loan. My own back-of-the-envelope modelling-I stress it is no more than that-suggests that some credit companies may well set their prices in that way. If there were a cap of 50% annual interest plus a 15% one-off charge, just about every segment of the market would survive, but by curbing the very worst excesses over time, we could bring that down.
	I do not have time to go through the rest of what I wanted to say, but we should not forget everything else-supplementary charges, roll-over charges, missed payment charges and minimum payments. Critically, lenders should be required to take all reasonable steps to make sure that loans are paid down and that charges never exceed a set percentage of the outstanding loan in any given month.

William Bain: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). I agreed with many of his remarks. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on speaking not just with passion and power but with the authority of someone who has done tremendous work in this area, and I hope that hon. Members across the House will endorse her proposal, her private Member's Bill and the motion she has moved today.
	I have been encouraged by the extent of cross-party consensus today. Whatever our views on the national debt and the deficit, I hope that hon. Members from all parties will agree that this issue is a massive problem. I want to put on record some of the problems being experienced by my constituents. I have the challenge, but also the great honour, of representing the community of Royston, which sits near the heart of my constituency and is one of the most deprived areas in Scotland. There are very low rates of pupil attainment at school and very low rates of schoolchildren moving into college and university. When I contacted North Glasgow advice centre in Royston last week, it told me that debt issues make up nearly half of all its work at the moment. Of the debt issues it manages, consumer debt, including credit and store card debt, personal loans and people dealing with pawn shops, make up 76.4%.
	The centre told me the terrible story of a pensioner couple, aged 70, who are still paying off the remainder of their mortgage and who came to the centre last week. The interest on their mortgage is being paid by the Department for Work and Pensions but there is a shortfall. When the centre explored their income and outgoings, it found they were paying £80 a week to a well-known doorstep lender. That type of abuse demonstrates the urgent need for regulation in this area.

Paul Blomfield: Is not one reason for urgency precisely that those in multiple debt are faced with doorstep lenders who visit them regularly so that they are inevitably drawn towards paying those debts above others that would normally be considered priority debts, such as rent and utilities? Allowing those debts to fall by the wayside causes greater problems such as eviction.

William Bain: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful and accurate point. The looming crisis in personal debt was summed up last April by Citizens Advice Scotland, which said:
	"The problem is not just the number of people who are in debt.... It's the extent of the debts that those people have."
	Having analysed the problem, it found that
	"On average, Scottish debtors have debts that are 50% higher than they were five years ago. And for every £1 they earn per month, the average Scottish debtor owes £28 in debt."
	Today, we have the opportunity to begin the process of ensuring that that burden does not rise through this Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) mentioned the EU consumer credit directive, but in many ways, that has added to the problem facing us today. Previously, providers were required to give two thirds of successful applicants for credit cards the advertised rate; under the directive, that will fall to just 51%. That change will leave millions of consumers paying more than they expected when they applied for credit, and people in that situation will increasingly resort to short-term credit.
	Five minutes from my home and my constituency office, in Springburn shopping centre, is a BrightHouse store. I shall share with the House some of the prices that my constituents were being charged for basic goods last week. For a washing machine with a cash price of £703, the payable amount under the BrightHouse credit scheme was £1,558.44. For a freezer with a cash price of £773, the amount payable through BrightHouse was £1,714.44. For a children's bunk bed set, the cash price was £345.69, but the BrightHouse credit charge was £765.96. We have the time to act now. I urge Members to seize the opportunity and to stop my constituents and those of Members on both sides of the House having to experience that sort of abuse from the short-term credit industry.
	In the short time left, I shall mention Provident cheques. Provident specialises in lending small sums, typically between £200 and £300, but with borrowers having to take out the loan for the longest borrowing period, we have seen interest rates ranging from 170% to 500%. A customer borrowing £200 over 55 weeks pays £330, equivalent to an APR of 177%.
	Members in all part of the House must surely appreciate that markets must have morals. We can act today to begin the process of regulating the industry. I urge the House to grasp the opportunity.

Stephen Lloyd: I echo my colleagues in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for pushing this issue and bringing the motion to the House for us to debate. It is incredibly important.
	When I first heard about the astronomical APRs charged by the payday loan firm, I was extremely concerned. When I discovered that the precise APRs charged were way beyond what I had feared or even imagined possible, ranging up to 2,000% in some cases, I was absolutely staggered. However, having carried out research over the past few months, I have discovered that the subject is horrendously complicated. Others have talked about that complexity, and I shall do so as well.
	We all know that there is one primary factor that maintains the status quo of iniquitous social exclusion for those at the very bottom of the income ladder-one primary factor that stops people from advancing socially and economically. That factor is financial exclusion, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow so brilliantly identified. Many people in disadvantaged areas have no formal savings, access to credit or even a bank account. In 2011, in one of the richest countries on Earth, that is an absolute travesty.
	I wrote to a number of the companies that provide payday loans and met their representatives; I also spoke with a number of constituents who have been on the receiving end of those companies' wares. I inquired robustly about their business model. I checked it, went through the process and had my team research it. Frankly, I was surprised by what I discovered: there are not necessarily large groups of our poorest citizens paying through the nose for higher interest loans, and the business model does not necessarily target people who habitually default before their loans are compounded. In the main, I found that lenders-the main suppliers-went to great efforts to ensure that their customers were able to pay back loans by building up trusting relationships with them. That was not the reality that I had expected, so it was a learning experience for me. It is important that debates in this House are informed by facts, and the fact that I have taken on board is that some of those firms play a vital role in certain communities.

Yvonne Fovargue: Could the hon. Gentleman explain to a constituent of mine who has six loans from payday loan companies, each one borrowed to pay off the other, how that could take place if the companies are targeting people to ensure that they have the ability to pay?

Stephen Lloyd: The hon. Lady raises a good point, and an important one. There will be some anomalies, but when I did the research I found that the majority of people who use payday loans pay them back regularly, otherwise the business model would collapse. I hope to be able to explain that as I go through my remarks.
	The companies offer credit to those who are financially excluded by larger and seemingly more reputable financial institutions, such as those banks that are now owned by the taxpayer. Although some of those loan companies have been associated with inescapable cycles of debt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) mentioned earlier, and with poverty, as noted by pressure groups such the excellent End Legal Loan Sharking, I now recognise that the whole issue is simply not as black and white as it has been painted.

Duncan Hames: Does my hon. Friend accept that the huge growth we have seen in the sector recently is an indication of how profitable this business is for those organisations?

Stephen Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures I have show that the sector is worth in excess of £1 billion per annum, and heading towards £1.5 billion, so it is clearly very profitable. That is the point I want to make, if Members will bear with me.
	The blunt reality is that many disadvantaged people simply do not have access to high street banks, which we all take for granted, and consequently they are forced to look elsewhere. They have no choice, and there is the rub. It is not simply people with poor credit ratings who seek the services of firms offering payday loans. A reality check is needed, because in modern society across the UK there is a real and present demand for quick, short-term loans to bridge the gaps between when individuals need money and when they are paid.
	Those people need the money for quite normal transactions, such as paying for a grocery bill or for an MOT, and they need it for the short term, just a couple of days before they get their payday cheque. The money is for mundane expenses that everyone has experienced, but they can be very different for people who need payday loans, because in that area a failure to find the money can quickly lead to a crisis that will take them from normality to abnormality in the space of 24 hours. That is a problem, because if well-meaning pressure groups are successful and able to see off established payday loan companies or force some of them to withdraw from the market, where will people turn?
	The hon. Member for Walthamstow made the point in her Westminster Hall debate that just six companies are responsible for 90% of business in that market. Although I do not necessarily agree that that constitutes an uncompetitive market-six major supermarkets in this country control 90% of their whole sector-I feel that regulating the market further might make it even less competitive. I think that greater monitoring of payday loan providers by the Office of Fair Trading to ensure that they are acting in a moral and responsible way and in the best interests of the consumer would be the right way forward. Financial exclusion is a horrible and vicious cycle, and poorer families can spend an additional £1,000 per year on essentials.
	That brings me to our high street banks, which are an integral part of this country's economy and vital to our recovery. All the banks in this country, however, are still in existence thanks to the massive 2008 bail-out at huge cost to the taxpayer-all of them. Yet, those banks continue to ignore a great number of taxpayers to whom they owe so much. In the banks' defence, they claim that such customers are high-risk and unprofitable, but banks are unable to understand their needs and inaccurately assess the risks they pose.
	The sector is worth £1.2 billion and clearly profitable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham said, but it ignores those 6 million people, so they are left to the payday loan companies, none of which I should want to be great friends with. My point is, however, that because the banks do not step in, the payday loan companies have to, and without them the situation might be catastrophic for the many millions of people who need them so desperately.

Ian Murray: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Since we became Members, she has been a stalwart campaigner on the issue, and to have a political issue of such like trending on Twitter-if Government Members would like to look up that term later, they are very welcome to-is a great credit to the campaign that she has run and to her for representing not only her constituents, but the constituents of all of us.
	Many people on both sides of the House support the measure, and I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), who is in his place, bring to the Chamber his great deal of experience on the issue. I am disappointed that he is going to put that all to the back of his mind when wandering into the Lobby this afternoon, but I hope that in the next hour he will change his mind and support what is one of the most valuable things that we can do in the Chamber.
	The issue affects many of my constituents and constituents throughout the country. Debt breaks up families, demolishes relationships and, all too often, leads to suicide and death, something that has not been highlighted this afternoon. Rarely are high-interest services used as a one-off; the spiral of debt, through chasing the tail of debt as others have said, can lead to families throughout the country becoming caught in a debt trap and, all too often, a death trap.
	I have been struck by the APR and total credit costs that we have heard about this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), who is not in his place, spoke about 4,000% APR, and although I appreciate that the motion is not just about capping APRs, but about the total cost of credit, I think that such figures should send a shiver down the spine of every Member in the Chamber.
	Moreover, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) explained that a mere 17.9% APR can take up to 40 years to pay off if someone makes just the minimum payment, so even small APRs, which attract people to credit, can have significant consequences if there is no education to resolve the issue.
	Short-term credit companies advertise aggressively. We just have to walk down our local shopping streets to see posters, advertising boards and window displays publicising payday loans and credit. Many of us know about such aggressive advertising, and Members have already described how lenders can create relationships in a person's own living room, but the main concern about advertising is that many people look for authorities on the issue and then give the adverts credence because of them. Indeed, adverts for payday loans with APRs of almost 3,000% have been carried on the website of the Department for Communities and Local Government-an authority to which people might look and say, "If they're saying it, this must be acceptable."
	Rising unemployment, housing costs and the VAT increase could leave families and ordinary people in a far worse situation, pushing them towards higher credit costs when paying for birthdays, Christmas, household repairs or just everyday living.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend mentioned the significance of the personal relationships that firms build up with borrowers. Does he agree that the network of people who are on incentivised contracts with the companies, and incentivised to maintain people in debt, is one of the biggest market barriers to the conventional banks coming into the sector?

Ian Murray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that. One would think we had rehearsed it, because I was about to go on to say exactly that. The chief executive of the country's largest payday lender, Peter Crook, recently said that he was likely to see a large increase in his target audience owing to the rising levels of unemployment. That highlights the relationships that are created not only to keep people in the spiral of debt but to keep the people who are pushing the debt in the spiral of commissions and maintaining their own lifestyles. That shows that strict regulation is required, not a code of conduct that could easily be dismissed by some of the more unscrupulous lenders. It also shows that those who are least able to pay are being charged the most at a time when they are least able to pay for this kind of credit.
	Of course, capping the total cost of credit is not an idea that has been plucked out of the air. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow demonstrated, there is evidence from around the world showing that it is perfectly possible to regulate the payday and home credit markets without adverse effects-all it takes is the political will to do so. There are undoubtedly detailed issues that would have to be resolved, but we are elected to this House to find solutions to problems, not to find problems to stop solutions, which is how I read the well-intentioned amendment. The political will is in the Chamber today to do something about this, and we should all grasp the moment and do what is right for our constituents.

Richard Graham: Today we have gathered in all parts of the House as the champions of sensible consumer credit for the most vulnerable in our communities. It is interesting that so many of these champions are new Members of this House. Among our company, I pay tribute, as many others have done, to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and to my hon. Friends the Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) who have been leading the way in setting out our concerns about consumer credit.
	The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) referred to snakes and ladders and concluded that the motion was all about increasing the ladders of opportunity for her constituents. In truth, it is about the other side of the equation: reducing the number of snakes, reducing the amount of credit that is made available through payday lending, and ultimately putting a squeeze on the loan sharks-the one species of fish which we might all agree we would not mind if the beastly EU fisheries legislation sorted out for ever.
	The motion proposed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow calls on the Government to introduce caps on prices. Interestingly, when she introduced the motion she called for the regulator to put these caps in place. All that is at stake in terms of whether we vote for the motion or for the amendment is the narrow issue of whether it is the place of the Government to impose caps on prices or whether it is the responsibility of the Government to encourage a regulator to do so. In that respect, it is relevant that the snappily named "son of OFT"-the consumer markets protection agency, if that is to be its final name-is the relevant body that should be putting caps on prices. The consultation is out there, and we should all be participating in it and encouraging the new agency to do so, as the motion and the amendment suggest.
	The other side of the equation, which is all about the ladders of opportunity, comes back to the other issue dear to the hearts of many of those in the Chamber-how to provide sensible credit to these vulnerable constituents. I declare an interest, as have many hon. Members, as a member of the Gloucester credit union. I pay tribute to the Government, specifically the Department for Work and Pensions, for funding a post to enable five small credit unions to form together into a Gloucestershire-wide credit union, which will be launched in March. It is through credit unions that we will make credit available to such constituents. I hope that it is part of the Minister's plans-no doubt he will tell us more-for credit from credit unions to be available through the network of 11,500 post offices.
	The final point I would like to make about the ladders of opportunity is on financial education. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon on the new all-party parliamentary group on this matter. Although it is a less attractive game than bashing bankers, I urge all Members to work with the financial services institutions in their constituencies, many of which provide considerable free financial education.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman compared the motion and the amendment and suggested that the motion called on the Government to introduce caps. It actually calls on the Government to introduce regulatory powers that would allow the introduction of caps. The amendment calls on the regulators to consider introducing caps. Do the regulators currently have such powers? If they do not, the amendment is specious.

Richard Graham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. The amendment encourages the Government to introduce
	"measures to increase access to affordable credit"
	and
	"urges regulators to consider putting"
	caps on prices. I believe that that is precisely the form of words that is appropriate. That is why I support the amendment. It recognises that 95% of the motion is right, but that it needs a significant but small fine tuning.

Tom Blenkinsop: I, too, praise my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) for their hard work on this issue and for securing this debate through the Backbench Business Committee.
	In the poorest communities in my constituency and throughout Teesside, the most vulnerable people are being preyed on by loan sharks and payday lenders. That is especially true in these difficult economic circumstances. The two councils in my constituency offer financial advice services that provide free support to people who need it, with support from Citizens Advice and the credit unions. Those services are well used by local people and sometimes they are the only accessible source of advice and support. Such services could be developed if post offices worked alongside credit unions as a post bank. I believe that the Government have a role in regulating to prevent vulnerable people being targeted and taken advantage of.
	It is no surprise that among the only businesses to have consistently benefited from the credit crunch are pawnbrokers and cash-for-gold shops, which offer quick-fix financial solutions for those in need of money. As the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission have said, the fact that customers seeking short-term loans cannot afford to shop around has meant that there is little competition in the sector, which has inflated rates artificially.
	In my constituency, the north-east illegal money lending team has worked tirelessly in communities such as Easterside to drive out illegal loan sharks who have been taking advantage of vulnerable people. It helped to set up sustainable lending and saving by community-based credit unions. The Minister has decided to withdraw funding for such teams and expects a national body based in Birmingham to replace them. I can only guess that that is part of the new consistent localism agenda that the Government have displayed.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman will know, I would have thought, that an independent study was done on how best to use the funding for illegal money lending teams. We have taken on the broad recommendations of that study. It suggested that a central team would be more effective and use the money better. The people in the north-east will still have the services of the illegal money lending teams.

Tom Blenkinsop: I do not accept that evidence, because the new team will not do the follow-up work that helped to set up the credit unions in those communities. A team in Birmingham cannot have the relationships with local people that can defeat the local illegal moneylenders who people know on their estates. I have campaigned hard against this decision, which I believe will leave communities in my constituency vulnerable to illegal loan sharks, after all the hard work that has been done to rid us of such criminal moneylenders.
	I back the motion because, contrary to the opinion of the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), it is not true that regulating the lending market will push people to use illegal loan sharks. In the real world, evidence shows that high-cost lending may be a precursor to illegal lending because people get into such a financial mess, and have such poor credit ratings as a result, that they turn to illegal lenders. And not only that: they are often dragged into criminal activity themselves as repayment by favour or in kind, such as hiding fenced goods, drugs or weapons. When they get caught, they lose their job and spiral downwards.
	With rising unemployment, the increase in VAT and the high cost of fuel, I genuinely fear that more and more of my constituents may feel that their only option is to turn to high-cost lenders such as payday, doorstep and hire-purchase lenders. The Government have already committed to regulating excessive interest rates on credit and store cards, and it is now time for them to focus on higher-cost unsecured lenders. That is why I support the motion. Now more than ever, it is absolutely necessary to protect vulnerable and often desperate people who turn to companies for credit that could destroy any hope of their having financial security in future.

Craig Whittaker: I assure the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) that although my grandmother was called Crook, neither she nor I are related to the person whom she named earlier. I thought I should put the record straight on that one.
	In Calder Valley, we have the fantastic Calderdale credit union of which I must declare I a member. It does some great work in combating doorstep lending and has achieved much in the local community of Todmorden to offset those lenders' high interest rates. It has done so through a great education programme and, of course, through providing small loans at a much lower rate, in line with that of most banks and reputable high street lenders.
	Last week, I attended our local Sure Start centre in Todmorden, at which Barclays bank held a money skills training programme for a group of young people and young parents. It explained the many aspects of finance and, importantly, the value of saving, and it became clear that the majority of the group of about a dozen young people had already come into contact with doorstep lenders.
	Some of the stories that we heard around the table were absolutely horrendous, and three key points came out of the discussion. First, young people are dealing with incredibly high interest rates from doorstep lenders. Secondly, those lenders' tactics are horrendous, with some of them knocking on the door at 4 am or 5 am to collect overdue money. Thirdly, as has been mentioned today, the most vulnerable sometimes enter a vicious cycle in which they are encouraged to extend loans time and again, or to add a television or washing machine.
	As has been mentioned several times, many Members attended the launch of the all-party group on financial education, which was set up by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and attended just last Monday by Martin Lewis. There is a real desire among all MPs to bring back financial education for our young people at school. Gone are the days when banks promoted bank accounts and the concept of saving to our young people at an early age through schools. We need to bring back a robust system in which our children are educated in finance in a consistent way.
	The education programmes of our high street banks, to which many of the banks' staff dedicate their own time, such as the Barclays money skills programme, are having an impact where they are targeted. The great results provided by credit unions such as Calderdale credit union in tackling doorstep lenders are leading to progress, albeit with very limited funds, through high levels of dedication from their staff. Sadly, however, there is not enough progress and far too many doorstep lenders continue to target the most vulnerable with well advertised, huge APRs, often in the thousands. That is not only obscene but immoral, and we need to take steps to introduce measures to increase access to affordable credit. We must also urge regulators to consider putting in place a range of caps in parts of the market in which immoral and often unscrupulous operators target the most vulnerable people.

Ben Gummer: My hon. Friend talks about some of the positive things that the banks are trying to do, but the vast majority of debt cases that I have seen in my surgeries have originated in appalling lending decisions by high street banks. It is important to stress that now while we are hitting everyone else.

Craig Whittaker: My hon. Friend highlights a serious problem, but it is important to appreciate that some of our high street lenders have recognised, in the light of what has happened, that they must do more to target the most vulnerable to highlight financial issues, as they are doing.
	I support the amendment because it is important to have a widespread review and not just a prescriptive briefing, particularly given that unscrupulous companies currently get around advertising the high cost of credit by massively increasing the base price of goods on offer, examples of which were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

John Woodcock: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), who spoke well about an area that I know well and where I have relations. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on showing the leadership to get this motion on the Order Paper today and to publicise it. She has been an example to us all.
	This has been a good debate. Many hon. Members have spoken well and made excellent points. If the vast majority of hon. Members accept that there is a significant problem, it is a question of what the Government can and should do about it. As one hon. Member said, there is a legitimate argument in favour of funding financial inclusion education in early years education. Partly because of the progress made in recent years, that is necessary, but it is not sufficient on its own. We should welcome the fact that 350,000 loans have been made by the not-for-profit sector, but that is not enough, and the enormous problem of people being charged appalling rates of interest remains.
	The question is this: if the Government decide that they cannot allocate the funds that they have allocated previously, can they take regulatory action to improve the situation and make a genuine difference? That is why I am disappointed by the response of some Government Members. They have a far greater grounding in such matters than I do and have spent much of their previous careers and parliamentary time in dealing with this issue, but they have not grasped the nettle, and they will not support the motion. Instead, they are taking a course of action that will ultimately delay things and put the matter in the hands of a regulator that has not been given sufficient political direction to tackle the problem head on.

Lorely Burt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Woodcock: If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will not take interventions because we need to hear as many speeches as we can.
	The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, when they were the opposition, spoke well of the need to tackle the level of debt in society and pointed out some faults in the previous Government's policies. Now is their chance to do something.
	Labour must accept that although we must protect people's right to choose, we must not continue to give unscrupulous companies a means to exploit people. I hope that the Consumer Credit (Regulation and Advice) Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow introduced, promotes credit unions. I am deeply proud of Walney Island credit union, which was set up by churches in response to mass redundancies at Barrow shipyard to help people through those enormously difficult times. We should no longer tolerate the gap being filled in this way while alternative forms of credit are introduced.
	In our privileged financial position, we have no need of loans of the kind regularly taken out by the poorest members of our society, but my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) spoke so well about the choice that she would probably have ended up making in desperation had she been in a situation in which she did not have enough money to get through Christmas.
	The freedom to make choices is important, but it is ultimately part of the Government's role to prevent us from being exploited and making the wrong short-term choices when in a desperate situation. That is what this debate is about, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support the motion.

Mark Durkan: I join others in commending the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for securing this debate, even though they differ on the amendment.
	Many hon. Members have described the problems in their constituencies. The problem is that firms in the credit market are able to exact credit terms that are lucrative for them but punitive for their customers. When we hear of some of the eye-watering interest rates that end up being charged, it is natural to think that there should be a law against it, and people look to this House to provide some sort of bulwark against open-sky exploitation. The motion asks the House to give the Government a mandate-although it is not a prescriptive mandate-to put regulatory powers in place that would provide caps that would be sensitive to the circumstances and needs of those who are in dire straits and otherwise financially excluded. Those caps would also be sensitive to the dynamics of different parts of the markets and sub-markets-

Damian Hinds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Durkan: No, because-

Damian Hinds: On the wording.

Mark Durkan: Well, I am addressing the wording. Many people are misrepresenting the motion and the amendment.
	The motion would not put prescriptive caps in place or require the Government to do so immediately. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who supports the amendment, said that a Government consultation is under way. But that consultation is not just asking the regulators what they think: it is rightly asking all of us what needs to happen to provide properly regulated financial services and proper protection to customers, both business and personal. Instead, the amendment says that we do not even want the Government to consider the question of regulatory powers that would protect those customers-we should ask the regulators to consider that question instead. Who are the regulators? The very consultation that the hon. Lady was talking about is about who the regulators will be in the future and what powers they will have. So the amendment is an evasion and dereliction of parliamentary responsibility, because it would simply ask the regulators to think about the issue-when we are still thinking about who the regulators should be and what powers they should have. It is a case of "There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza." If people want an answer to this problem, they should not back the amendment.

Damian Hinds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Durkan: No, because I want to give other hon. Members a chance to speak. The hon. Gentleman is supporting the amendment and he ended up pleading with the Minister to consider what he called "twin caps". I do not know why he did that when he is backing an amendment that says that the Minister should not consider anything to do with caps. So the hon. Gentleman does not want the Minister to have anything to do with this and instead it should be unspecified and unknown regulators.
	There is even more uncertainty about who the regulators in Northern Ireland would be. If I, as a Member representing Northern Ireland, was to support the amendment, I would be asked by my constituents, "Well, who are the regulators in our country?" It is unclear who the regulators would be in Northern Ireland. That is why I cannot join others in sidestepping the main point of the motion by backing the amendment.
	I would like to join my Celtic colleague, the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), in making a point about debt management and debt management plans. There are not only loan sharks out there, but debt sharks, who pose as debt dolphins coming up to help people who are deep in dire debt. We need clearer regulation. We know that an Office of Fair Trading report found that more than 129 companies were engaged in various questionable practices; and we know that there are models for statutory schemes, not just in other jurisdictions such as the south of Ireland and elsewhere across Europe, but even in Scotland, where there is a debt arrangement scheme that provides a good model for protecting consumers in dire need of credit but being exploited in the name of debt management plans.
	The term "flipping" was used during the parliamentary expenses scandal to describe MPs changing houses. In the debt management plan arena, of course, we have flipping as well, with companies sucking customers in with unsustainable terms then flipping them on to more exorbitant terms in the future.

Chuka Umunna: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing this debate, which I think has been a very good one. I also endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the amendment.
	In the little time available, I want to widen the debate to talk about financial exclusion in general. We have discussed these issues over the past few weeks, and in the coming months, when we will be talking about some of the big macro-prudential issues relating to the financial services sector, we will be considering whether to separate out our banks between investment and retail; and we will also be considering banks' loss-absorbing capacity, risk assets and such like. However, it is extremely important that we do not forget some of the issues presenting challenges for the people we represent. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), who is no longer in his place, referred to the raw deal that many of our constituents are getting from the big retail banks. I endorse what he said.
	A 2004 investigation by  The  Guardian found that payment protection insurance, for example, was being widely mis-sold by many of the banks to customers who would not be able to claim under the terms of the insurance. Banks were making profit margins of up to 80% on those products. I am a member of the Treasury Select Committee, and last November I took the chief executive officer of Lloyds Banking Group to task for charging extortionate rates of interest for arranged overdrafts. He was levying a charge of 19.3% on his customers-more than 38 times the bank of England base rate. Last month, Barclays was fined £7.7 million by the Financial Services Authority for misleading savers, and RBS was fined £2.8 million by the FSA for its inadequate handling of customer complaints.
	The increase in personal debt has been mentioned. It is not coincidental that, since 2000, productivity has risen at double the rate of wages, which have in some sense stagnated. As a consequence, people have borrowed and household debt has exploded. That might also explain why we have seen an explosion in the demand for short-term credit. It has already been mentioned that in 2009 the payday lending industry was worth more than £2.2 billion-more than 3.5 times what it was in 2006. However, we are where we are, and the need for credit has now become a basic essential of everyday life. I would be prepared to bet that most people in the Chamber have a credit card. We all come under different stresses when we go through different things in our lives-for example, moving home.
	One of the problems is that it is often the poor and the vulnerable who are most in need of credit. That was one reason I wanted to participate in today's debate. I represent a constituency that is varied but has pockets of severe deprivation, and we find that it is those people who are struggling to gain access to credit and struggling with financial issues. In the past four months, my local citizens advice bureau has dealt with well over 400 debt advice queries. Despite that, however, those poor and vulnerable people are the very ones getting the rawest deal from the sector in terms of the services they are being provided with. Three million people in this country do not have a bank account, and 35% of those in deprived communities do not have access to simple banking services.
	I think that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) mentioned the fact that the industry has pointed to all that it has been doing since 2003 to introduce basic bank accounts. Typically, the bank accounts that have been introduced since that time allow customers to receive their pension or benefit payments and perhaps have a debit card, but they do not offer overdrafts and the often do not provide access to a cheque book. They do not provide the full menu of services that we would all expect.
	For me, this is simple: the industry is failing to do anything about financial exclusion. With the present voluntary commitment, the sector lacks sufficient incentive to dedicate its resources to help to address the issue, not least because of its obsession with maximising shareholder value. Yes, it has a legal duty to do that, but that sometimes goes against its obligations to society, which has provided £1.3 trillion of support to the sector since the global financial crisis came to a head. In addition to supporting the motion, I would like us to introduce a universal banking service obligation, to prevent people from needing to go to the doorstep lenders in the first place.

Sheila Gilmore: I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) not only for securing this debate, but for the campaign that she has been waging on this subject since she was elected. Mention has been made of the review of consumer credit, and of the consultation, which closed some time ago. It is important to remember that that review would not even have looked at some of these issues if my hon. Friend had not pushed for them to be examined, so we are here today in part because of her efforts.
	It always worries me when people say things like, "We don't need to regulate yet" or, "We're all in agreement with this, but-".

Lorely Burt: The Labour Government had 13 years in which to regulate, and they conducted three investigations into this very subject. They did not bite the bullet, however, so the hon. Lady should not be criticising us. We are conducting a consultation nine months into this Government.

Sheila Gilmore: The hon. Lady has been told on several occasions by various Members that the proposal in the motion is different from some of the proposals that were not taken up by the previous Government. If I had been in this place then, I would have been pushing my Government to do exactly what the motion proposes. It is not good enough to say, "If your Government did not do this, you should not propose it now." For how long does she think should we be disbarred from making such proposals? One year, two years, 13 years? On that basis, we might as well not be here at all, but perhaps some Members on the Government Benches would prefer that.

Craig Whittaker: I understand the party politics involved, but does the hon. Lady acknowledge that we have already heard a lot of evidence today about how these unscrupulous companies get around the process anyway simply by increasing the base price? We need to take time out to have a look at this in a proper, regulated manner.

Sheila Gilmore: I am not convinced that we have heard assertions or evidence that that could happen. If we always decided not to legislate because someone could get around the law, there might be a case for not legislating.
	I should declare an interest as a solicitor, and one of the things that drew me to the law as much as to politics was my belief that the law is a valuable tool to help those who are more vulnerable. The law is a lever to create a better balance of power between those who have power and assets and those who do not.
	I am not saying that we should regulate on absolutely everything, but regulation is necessary if we are to deal with a problem that has expanded greatly, partly but not entirely because of the recession. The industry is incredibly seductive for people; it offers them attractive places to go and produces attractive adverts that make everything seem very easy. There is widespread agreement on the need to help people and to make changes, provided that that is not done through regulation, but we must will the means, not just the end. It is not enough to have warm words and to keep talking about how important it is to have measures to deal with financial exclusion and vulnerable people. We have to will the means to do that.
	There was a recent Westminster Hall debate on basic bank accounts, in the course of which it became clear that, for all the espousal of financial inclusion, there is a growing inability to will the means that are needed. The measure before us is one of them, and there are several more. In my earlier intervention I referred to the growth fund. Every Member wants there to be more sources of affordable credit. We are all great supporters of credit unions-indeed, I am a member of my local credit union-and we want their lending to be expanded.
	One practical recent measure that led to that expansion was the growth fund. As a result of it, lending by credit unions and other community-based financial institutions was able to expand greatly. That will end in March this year, however. Some people might say, "Well, that's the date your Government set for it to end." I must say yet again, however, that had my party been re-elected last May, I would have been pressing them to extend the growth fund because it has built up many credit unions and other community-based financial institutions to provide an alternative for people. Without that lending capacity however, many such organisations will have to reduce their lending activities substantially; that is what they are telling me. The alternatives that people often say should be in place before we legislate will therefore not be in place if we do not go on expanding through the growth fund.
	I was also concerned to hear that the financial inclusion taskforce within the Treasury, which the previous Government set up, is, in effect, being wound up. Several of the people who were working in this field have already been redeployed to other activities.
	If we want to put our money where our mouth is, we need to put in the financial resource and the legislation. Even at this stage in the debate, I hope that Members are willing to decide to vote for the motion and not support the amendment, and to put pressure on the Government to continue the work that the previous Government did in a variety of fields. This is part of the big jigsaw puzzle that we have to address when dealing with financial inclusion and the problems some people face. We need all the following measures: we need credit unions, but we need the resource to go with them; and we also need community-based financial institutions and other sorts of credit unions.
	There is one further small provision that the Minister might want to consider: reforming and extending community investment tax relief. Many community development financial institutions-community-based lending institutions that lend to individuals and businesses-would like that, and I hope that the Government are prepared to consider this further measure that is part of the wider jigsaw puzzle.
	I commend the motion, and I hope the consensus that has been apparent will translate into support for it.

Nia Griffith: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) on proposing today's motion. I especially congratulate them on recognising the complexity of the problem and on presenting us with a practical and realistic proposal for cracking down on the excessive fees and costs charged by doorstep lenders. The Opposition Front-Bench team is pleased to support the motion.
	I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow for using parliamentary procedures and organised campaigning so effectively to highlight this problem and for seeking to find a workable solution. It is a tribute to her that her work has inspired so many other hon. Members to prioritise the issue, to do their own research and to try to think through workable ways of cracking down on extortionate charges. She is fully aware of the reasons why a single cap on interest rates-perhaps an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air-would not be the solution and could have unintended consequences.
	My hon. Friend has understood the evolution of our thinking, from first having reviews when we were in government, to the position in our manifesto in which we pledged to clamp down on such practices. She has used her own research and has come up with a practical solution, which she has explained in her speech and the motion, which comprises a range of powers that the regulator needs to tackle the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) has said, we are asking the Government to consider the matter now precisely because they have been looking at regulation. Those are the reasons why it is particularly appropriate that the motion should have been brought forward today, with its practical solution to the problem.
	Many of those on low incomes have no reserves to help them get through difficult times. They struggle to make ends meet and pay their bills. Any loss of income or small change in circumstance can lead to their having to choose between putting the heating on and putting food on the table, driving them into the hands of those offering payday loans. It is therefore not surprising that there has been a particularly rapid increase in the payday loan market over the past few years. In 2009, the payday lending industry was worth more than £1.2 billion, more than three and a half times what it was worth in 2006. There are now some 1.2 million people using the payday lending market and more than 3 million people using the home credit market. The problem has been further exacerbated in the past couple of years by the tightening up among mainstream lenders. People have found their credit limits from mainstream lenders suddenly curtailed, and they have been forced to look elsewhere, thereby swelling the numbers of those relying on high-cost doorstep borrowing or home credit firms.
	Those on low incomes often have the least choice. Those with the lowest incomes often end up paying the highest prices for goods and services. They often do not have the spare cash to bulk-buy or take advantage of special offers; nor do they have the credit ratings to walk into high street stores and use a credit card. Many on low incomes do not have access to the internet, and even if they do, many do not have the credit cards to enable them to go internet shopping. It is the lack of choice that makes people particularly vulnerable. They have no option but to turn to the doorstep lenders and home credit companies, which charge exorbitant rates on their cash loans or hire purchase agreements. The lack of choice or competition in the market makes it particularly important that the Government should step in and regulate.
	There is a parallel between this debate and what we did in government to tackle the scandal of the high unit cost of electricity charged to those who pay using prepayment tokens. When we were in government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, put considerable pressure on the regulator Ofgem to tackle the energy companies with sustained pressure itself. The energy companies eventually reduced the unit costs paid by those using prepayment meters-reduced, yes; but admittedly not reduced to the very cheapest rates, which are paid by those who can shop around and choose to pay by direct debit, in recognition of the fact that, as the energy companies pointed out, there is a higher cost involved in the administration of prepayment meters. Nevertheless, there was a recognition that the charges had been too high, and they were reduced.
	The motion that we are debating today asks the Government to intervene in a similar way in the high-cost doorstep lending market. By introducing new regulatory powers, a regulator can work with the industry, taking account of the legitimate extra costs of collecting frequent small payments in person, and can work to achieve realistic reductions in exorbitant interest rates and charges. This is not about imposing an arbitrary interest rate cap that would drive companies to slap on other charges; nor is it about driving legal companies out of the doorstep-loan markets, leaving vulnerable customers prey to the illegal loan sharks. This is about working with the industry to reduce the overall cost that the customer has to pay for payday loans and home credit.
	As the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has so forcefully reminded us, regulators need teeth, and it helps if they also have strong backing. That is precisely why it is so important to have the stronger wording of the motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, which refers to
	"regulatory powers that put in place a range of caps,"
	rather than the weaker wording suggested by the amendment. Our experience with prepayment meters was that it took strong leadership and firm pressure to effect the necessary changes. I strongly suspect that tackling the excessive charges of doorstep lenders and home credit companies will also require strong powers and political will.
	As the motion says, it is important to increase access to affordable credit. When we were in government, we took concerted action to promote access to alternative sources of credit through the growth fund. That increased the availability of affordable personal loans by third sector not-for-profit lenders such as credit unions and community development finance institutions. Between 2006 and 2010, 350,188 loans were approved and payments amounting to £152 million were made. I hope the Minister will tell us whether the Government plan to continue that provision beyond April 2011.
	Let me return to the issue of regulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham pointed out, this is a particularly appropriate time for the Government to introduce regulatory powers. It is bad enough that low-income communities are bearing the brunt of taxation changes and the Government's savage cuts in entitlements and public services. The very least that the Government could do is accept our modest proposal, and protect people from excessive charges for doorstep loans.
	What we are asking today is for the Government not to pass by on the other side of the road-not to ignore those who are being ruthlessly exploited-but to take some simple, straightforward steps to clamp down on this callous exploitation.

Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing a debate on this important subject, on which there is so much common ground. I believe that there is a consensus across the House that we need to protect vulnerable people, especially those on low incomes, from irresponsible and, worst of all, illegal lenders.
	There is, of course, some debate about how we should protect consumers from exploitation. Although today's discussion has rightly ranged widely, the motion and many contributions have focused on one particular option for credit regulation, namely a cap on the total cost of credit. I shall deal with that specific point in some detail later, but in order to do justice to a number of the excellent speeches that we have heard, I shall begin by responding to some of the many points that have been made.
	One of the huge benefits of a debate such as this is that the House has a chance to contribute actively to the Government's ongoing work and, in particular, to our two ongoing consultations. However the House votes this afternoon-and I strongly urge all Members to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker)-I assure Members that we are in listening mode. We have not reached our final conclusions, not least because one consultation has not closed and we have yet to analyse all the submissions made in response to the call for evidence. Let me, however, tell the House what the Government have been and are still doing, and how we have learnt from the previous Government's attempts. Of course, they rejected proposals for caps on consumer credit not once, not twice, but three times.
	The previous Government were not shy or inactive in this regard, and some of their policies were good. We are continuing those policies and hope to improve on them. Let me give two examples. The first relates to illegal moneylenders-the loan sharks who will use intimidation and even violence to collect their money. They are criminals, and they need to be identified, caught, charged and imprisoned. The previous Government set up illegal moneylending teams whose job was to help to enforce the law in communities throughout the country. They are specialist teams consisting of trading standards officers and seconded police officers who are taking the fight to the loan sharks. Despite the cuts that we are having to make, we have maintained spending in that area, and we hope to make the money go further and work harder against those criminal loan sharks by reorganising the teams and following the recommendations of an independent study.
	My second example relates to the availability of more affordable credit. We are actively trying to make some of these high-cost credit markets more competitive so that people on low incomes can have more choice and credit can be affordable and accessible. I have made no secret of my support for credit unions and the building of closer links between them and the Post Office, enabling more people to take advantage of their services. I am pleased that we have seen real progress in that regard, and that many credit union customers who sign up for the service can now pay in and withdraw money at their local post offices. I am working with others across Government to establish where and how we can go further. I hope that we shall be able to proceed with new measures, but we must work out the details.
	We are doing other things, and other things are happening. We have seen the vital development of better education about credit and about finance more widely. The Consumer Financial Education Body is funded in full by a Financial Services Authority levy on the financial services industry. It will provide Britain's first national financial advice service, which will offer a free, impartial financial education to all along with an annual financial health check. That will enable people to manage their financial affairs better. Clearly we can and should do more, and I particularly welcome the setting up of the all-party group on financial education for young people by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson).
	In addition, this very week, the consumer credit directive came into force, which introduces new and powerful regulations for consumers that will have far-reaching consequences for the high-cost credit market. I know that not everyone in the House shares the same view on Europe and European legislation, but I am sure that we can all agree that the new requirements on lenders to undertake a creditworthiness assessment before any loan is made and the new 14-day cooling-off period for consumers, allowing them to withdraw from any credit agreement, are welcome. Under the directive, pre-contractual information for the consumer will now have to show the total cost of credit and how much has to be paid back. I believe that the new regulations and their changes will make a real difference.
	From that list it should be clear that the Government have been active and lots of new measures have just been implemented, but I want to go further. That is why, jointly with the Treasury, my Department has launched two reviews that will be fundamental to the regulation of consumer credit in future. First, the Government are reviewing the framework for financial services regulation, including the two current consumer credit regulators, the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Services Authority. The review is an opportunity for us to look at how best to regulate consumer credit and who should have responsibility for that. We are consulting now and any new regulator may well end up with greater powers to intervene in the consumer credit market to introduce the powers that many here today are seeking.
	The FSA has already made its thoughts known on this subject in a discussion paper about "Product Intervention". Chapter 6 deals with product intervention options for the new regulator and mentions price capping. Paragraph 6.40 states:
	"Price capping is the most radical price intervention and would involve us making difficult judgements about the appropriate price we regard as consistent with good consumer outcomes. However, we consider that it is an option that should remain open."
	The Government have also launched a review of consumer credit and personal insolvency, which takes an end-to-end view from the decision to borrow to how we support people in difficult circumstances and help them to resolve their debt. It looks, for example, at the advertising of credit, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members.
	I cannot give any undertakings today about what will emerge as a result of those reviews, because we are still considering the evidence. Nothing has been decided and it would be irresponsible of me to stand here today pre-empting their results, but we are not afraid of taking action where the evidence justifies doing so. We will not hesitate to act where there is evidence of detriment to consumers or exploitation of them. The Government want poor households to be able to strike a better balance between how they save, insure and access credit, and we are looking at a lot of ideas.
	For example, we believe that there are great gains to be had from collective purchasing. We are working with the insurance industry and social landlords to develop and promote affordable home contents insurance for social tenants. If those products succeed, they will enable many more households to claim back the cost of household emergencies, rather than relying on high-cost credit to replace essential goods if they are burgled or a high-cost item, such as a washing machine, if it breaks down. We hope that the trials of such products will commence in March or April this year. Such measures will not be an immediate solution, but they could help those on low incomes even more than caps on high-cost credit.
	I come to the one specific issue that the hon. Member for Walthamstow wishes us to focus on: a cap on total credit. The motion calls on the Government to consider introducing a cap on the total cost that lenders can charge for credit. At first glance, that appears sensible. Yet, despite what she said, the evidence base for her new approach is limited, to say the very least. What seems sensible at first glance could have huge unintended consequences for those we are trying to help. Without a proper assessment of the evidence it would be rash and frankly negligent to rush into this proposal. We know that there have been studies carried out that show that an interest rate cap could have very detrimental impacts on the vulnerable-that was accepted by the previous Government. This year's OFT review of the high-cost credit market ruled out not just interest rate caps, but any price controls in the market. The EU review that the hon. Lady prayed in aid is ambiguous on this, to say the least.
	A forthcoming study, which has not yet been published, has been undertaken by Policis. It has had the advantage of collaborating with Claire Whyley, chair of the credit sub-group of the Financial Inclusion Taskforce and chair of the FSA consumer panel, and Paul Jones, who is the leading expert on social lending. The study concludes by saying that if a cap were to be constructed to take in the total cost of credit, including penalty charges and similar, more of those on low incomes would be likely to find access to mainstream options restricted or curtailed altogether. That is the only evidence I have seen that deals with this issue in detail. We have to assess these issues, because the hon. Lady's proposals do not do what she claims. We need to gather evidence and properly assess it, and I reassure the House that we will do that. When we have analysed the evidence and got the results of consultations, we will report back to the House. We will not be afraid of taking tough measures if they are required.

Stella Creasy: I want to put on record my thanks to all Members who have taken part in today's debate. The fact that 21 Back Benchers have come to speak and that there has been broad agreement suggests that this issue cannot be ignored any longer. I note the exceptions of the hon. Members for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and their concerns. They might want to reflect on their ability to add heat to a subject that requires light. That is the challenge we face today.
	I am deeply disappointed by the Minister's approach to the debate. He offers so much and at the last minute takes it away. To talk about the discussion on total cost credit and then quote from an industry-led report that has been funded and supported in that way is a shame. Notwithstanding that, I hope he will accept that the broad support from Members today shows that there is agreement that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and that the measures brought forward so far have not been satisfactory. The issue, then, is how we should proceed.
	I had hoped to convince the Minister today that the Opposition's proposals, to which the motion speaks, are rooted in evidence-recent evidence that he has previously put forward to me to support his case. I note that he has changed his mind now, but perhaps he will change it again. The big truth at the heart of this issue is that the longer the Government linger, the more problems will deepen. I go back to the point that nearly half of households, as a direct result of the economic conditions we are in, are struggling to make ends meet, and that 10% of them are borrowing from the people we have been discussing. The longer we fail to act, the more these rates will cripple families across the country, so I urge him not to reject the proposals simply because of an ideological objection to regulation. Regulation done well has been supported by Hayek.
	I also urge the Government not to reject the proposal simply because it comes from the Opposition. I say to the Minister: "You may have used your party to delay progress to date, but you will not stop the pressure from the people of this country for something to happen. That has been very clear today. You have left your own Back Benchers uncomfortable by forcing prevarication, but please do not leave that wound to fester. Work with all of us who would support and encourage a form of capping. We will not let you throw these proposals out and we will do what we can to continue this debate and keep this issue alive. We will hold you to account because our constituents demand and need nothing less. If only the Government stand in the way of progress, I urge them to reconsider. Please support the motion as it is and do not amend it. Please show clear leadership and send a clear signal to our constituents that you are not in the pocket of the legal loan shark industry but that you stand as we do with the poorest consumers in this country, seeking action now." I tell the Minister honestly that if he does that and makes a clear commitment to doing that today, we will applaud him; if he does not, we will never forgive and we will never forget.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 156.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House notes with alarm recent evidence showing a fourfold increase in the use of payday lending since the beginning of the recession and that high cost credit lenders advanced approximately £7.5 billion to low and middle income consumers in 2008 alone; recognises the problems of financial exclusion, lack of financial and debt management education, lack of price competitiveness in the unsecured lending market and the near monopoly positions of many large lenders which contribute to the high costs of borrowing; considers that without action these factors could worsen family debt, poverty and financial difficulties to the detriment of the economic recovery; therefore calls upon the Government to introduce measures to increase access to affordable credit; urges regulators to consider putting in place a range of caps on prices in areas of the market in unsecured lending which are non price-competitive, likely to cause detriment to consumers or where there is evidence of irresponsible practice; and believes that such caps should take account of the desirability of maintaining access to affordable and responsible credit, the likely impact on the supply of credit and the cost of enforcement, that they should be regularly reviewed and that they should use the total cost of credit, calculated on a yearly basis, to ensure that lender avoidance and distortions in price are prevented.

Legal Aid Reform

Yvonne Fovargue: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the reform of legal aid.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing that this important topic be debated prior to the closure of the consultation on proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales. The consultation paper proposes to cut an estimated £350 million from the civil legal aid budget. Roughly two thirds of those cuts are directed at people who are currently legally aid-able, and one third will come from remuneration cuts to providers, who are expected to do the same work but for less money.
	Some £279 million will be cut from civil legal aid, and about half a million people will lose their entitlement to legal aid. The majority of them come from low- income households, and the Ministry of Justice's own equality impact assessment acknowledges that they will be predominantly women, black and minority ethnic people and ill and disabled people. However, while the consultation acknowledges this, it also says that it is not just about cost but is the "right thing to do". I believe that I can demonstrate that both the cost argument and the statement that it is the "right thing to do" are incorrect, and that the implementation of these proposals to reduce civil legal aid will hit the poorest hardest, increase the cost to other public bodies, and have a potentially catastrophic effect on not-for-profit advice agencies, including citizens advice bureaux and law centres.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that one of the issues that should be addressed is poor decision making by public authorities, particularly in immigration, where the UK Border Agency fails to make good decisions based on good evidence? That is why people have to go to the tribunal, and that is why they need legal aid.

Yvonne Fovargue: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I will come to that later when I suggest some ways of saving money in the system.
	Whole swathes of advice areas are removed from the scope of legal aid, particularly the social welfare law category. Welfare benefit is removed completely from legal aid. According to the Ministry of Justice's own equality impact assessment, 63% of clients who received legal aid in this category had a disability, 54% were female and 27% were from a black and minority ethnic background. However, this is justified by stating that the
	"accessible, inquisitorial and user friendly nature of the tribunal means appellants can generally present their case without any assistance".
	It also states:
	"Advice and help are available from a number of sources including Job Centre Plus and the Benefits Enquiry Line".
	So people who have had their claim refused by Jobcentre Plus or the Benefits Agency are to go to them for support in challenging the decision and they will help them. I have to say that that is not the experience I had when I worked for an advice agency.

Stephen Lloyd: On the basis of what the hon. Lady has said, which I support entirely, would she be interested to know that Brighton Housing Trust's Eastbourne advice centre deals with at least 800 specialist housing cases per year and anticipates that this will fall to about 100? Are we really expecting Jobcentre Plus to take up the slack?

Yvonne Fovargue: Yes, I totally agree. In fact, my local citizens advice bureau has phoned the Benefits Agency 100 times and has had no response apart from saying that everyone is busy.
	These issues are not considered of sufficiently high importance, but when a person is ill or has a disability one of their major concerns is having an adequate income to enable a decent quality of life. The early advice available under this funding can save money. Some 80% of social welfare legal aid cases have positive outcomes for clients. In the agency where I worked, 70% of our reassessment appeals were successful, and that negated the need for a costly tribunal.
	I would like to debunk the myth that these cases are not complex. My own CAB in Wigan dealt with a case for three years where the Department for Work and Pensions asserted that a couple were living together as man and wife, despite evidence from a neighbouring local authority that Mr M was resident there and receiving benefits, and that he merely visited to look after his disabled daughter, assisting with her care on occasion. Mrs M was summonsed for benefit fraud, convicted, and ordered to repay £27,000. The CAB continued with the case, appealed three times, and went to the Secretary of State. At the final appeal, Mrs M was found to owe £236-a reduction of more than £26,500. Was that a complex case? Would it be suitable for a telephone helpline? I do not think so. That client needed the face-to-face help given by a skilled CAB adviser and was funded by legal help.

Lilian Greenwood: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that the suggestion that legal advice could be provided over the phone fails to understand the level of support that is provided by many legal representatives, particularly when they are dealing with vulnerable groups such as asylum seekers and refugees-often people who face persecution, are separated from their family, and perhaps do not have English as a first language?

Yvonne Fovargue: I agree with my hon. Friend. In times of stress, people often need the support of a friendly face.
	For every £1 of legal aid expenditure on welfare benefits in the Wigan borough, £20.50 per year of additional benefit is obtained for clients. Nationally, for every £1 of legal aid expenditure on welfare benefits, the state potentially saves £8.80.

Paul Farrelly: rose-

Yvonne Fovargue: I would like to make a little progress, because the debate is quite late.
	Debt is another area that will be removed from the scope of legal aid, except for cases in which the client's home is at immediate risk. The impact assessment shows that 55% of debt clients are female and that 30% are likely to have a disability. Yet again, the consultation paper states that, although debt problems are important to the individual, they are not important enough to warrant legal aid funding.
	I have seen the effects of debt on individuals, and the cost-both human and to the state, including to the NHS-of not resolving debt issues at an early stage. A project that I was involved in used a recognised NHS scale to monitor stress levels before and after the advice process dealing with unsecure debts. The primary care trust believed that in the first nine months of the project, three suicides had been prevented. At what cost? In Wigan, the citizens advice bureau deals with 616 debt clients per year at a cost of £123,000 to the state. It reschedules £4.83 million worth of debt and writes off £3.47 million worth. For the expenditure of £123,000, £367,000 is saved.
	I support the expansion of financial education into schools and communities, but that will not assist people who are in debt now. My experience is that when the issue is raised in schools, more parents arrive at the advice agency's door because they are made aware that there is somewhere to go. They almost feel that they have got permission to go there.

Paul Farrelly: Every conscientious MP knows the value of citizens advice bureaux. Quite simply, without them, our offices would be swamped. That prospect awaits us. My hon. Friend has highlighted the situation in Wigan. Citizens Advice has highlighted that 730 fewer people will receive specialist debt advice in Stoke-on-Trent, 1,280 fewer in my area of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and more than 1,500 fewer in north Staffordshire. Does she agree that this is not only a false economy, but a heartless cut?

Yvonne Fovargue: I agree with my hon. Friend. I will go on to give some figures on the impact that the proposals will have on advice agencies.
	Agencies that provide telephone advice such as National Debtline have a great role to play, but they cannot replace face-to-face advice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said. The reality is that people need to sit down with an adviser. They need the reassurance and trust of a relationship that is built up over time.
	There is a reason why social welfare law problems, including employment, housing, debt and benefits, were given primarily to advice agencies: the interlinking of those problems. Limiting the scope and the type of the problems that advisers can deal with limits their ability to deal with the whole person and with all their issues. For example, legal help might prevent somebody from losing their home because of debt, but it will not address the causes of that debt, such as unfair dismissal or a refusal of sickness benefits. I could give examples of many areas that are taken out of the scope of such help, but I believe that colleagues will mention them. The list is extremely long and access for the most vulnerable is severely curtailed in many cases.
	I shall turn now to the effect on citizens advice bureaux and not-for-profit providers. The Ministry of Justice estimates that this sector will lose 97% of its legal aid funding. Currently, local citizens advice bureaux receive £26 million of legal aid funding, with the largest amounts being spent on debt and benefits. If the proposals are implemented, £20 million will go in one fell swoop and there will be a significant impact on the ability to deliver not only legal aid-eligible services but all other client services. A survey undertaken by Citizens Advice showed that if the proposal went ahead, 80% of local bureaux would have to withdraw specialist services, 85% would have reduced capacity to meet clients' needs and, most shockingly, 51%-more than half-felt that there would be a risk to the continuation of the whole CAB service in their borough.
	Legal aid funding cannot be treated in isolation from other sources of advice funding, especially as the consultation assumes that people can access other services to pick up the slack. The free advice sector is suffering disproportionately from public funding reductions, and even agencies such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which have no legal aid funding, have approached me saying that they could not deal with any increase in demand for their services due to the impact of the proposals.

Alan Beith: The hon. Lady is making an eloquent case, particularly on behalf of organisations that are currently giving evidence on these matters to the Select Committee on Justice. Does she recognise that there ought to be some scope for funding to be provided for an examination of the sources of some of the problems on which advice is being sought, whether they are public bodies that make poor decisions, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) rightly pointed out, or the banks?

Yvonne Fovargue: I totally agree that there is scope for other funding provision, but that has not been available yet. In fact, provision is being withdrawn because of the withdrawal of funding for face-to-face advice from citizens advice bureaux.

Kate Green: Does my hon. Friend also accept that the need for advice is rising in the current economic climate, particularly on employment, social welfare benefits and debt?

Yvonne Fovargue: I completely agree. This is a time of great change for many clients, and the need for legal help is even more vital.
	The suggested resolution to the problem is the community legal advice helpline, the gateway to civil legal aid services that will offer non-eligible clients access to paid services. First, I wish to take issue with the premise that the legal aid scheme has expanded beyond its original intentions. Actually, the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 was promoted with very wide objectives, which were explained as being intended to provide
	"legal advice for those of slender means and resources so that no one will be financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or to defend a legal right".
	I am not convinced that a gatekeeping telephone helpline will promote that.
	Access to telephone advice is important, and I would welcome any expansion of it, but it has to be implemented in tandem with face-to-face services. Clients need to have that choice. The community legal advice helpline uses an 0845 prefix, which is very expensive from a pay-as-you-go mobile. Many people with learning disabilities or mental health issues prefer to attend in person, to pick up on non-verbal signals and build the trust necessary to tell the advisers their problem. Citizens advice bureaux make a particular effort to reflect the communities that they serve, and that is why people use their services.
	As an aside, I should like to mention volunteers, who are mentioned in the consultation paper as another way for people to pick up advice if the proposed changes are made. However, I do not believe that that is true. Volunteers work best and most confidently when they are supported and encouraged by specialists. It was only when that support was provided that the number of volunteers and the depth of the work that they undertook increased significantly in the bureau that I managed.
	There are opportunities to save money in the justice sector without placing the burden on front-line services. The Ministry of Justice intends to reform the Legal Services Commission, and there is a large amount of bureaucracy in the administration of legal aid. I spent 60% of my time managing 30% of the money that I got. A lighter-touch procurement, auditing and payment mechanism could be found, and that needs to be considered seriously.

Karl Turner: On the point about volunteers, many of my colleagues in my chambers, and in local firms of solicitors, volunteer their services to advice bureaux regularly. The incidence of that will diminish given the dreadful cuts to those firms' legal aid and the fact that they cannot take on trainees as a result of the cuts. Advice is diminishing drastically as a result of the Government's cuts.

Yvonne Fovargue: I agree with my hon. Friend that pro bono advice provision is important, but it is not available in all places. In fact, in the conurbation that I served, there was no pro bono advice.
	It is also important to decrease the need for civil legal aid by addressing poor decision making by public bodies and avoiding the need for tribunal. We should take the lawyers out of tribunals, make legal processes simpler and improve public legal education. Early advice saves money and keeps cases out of the courts. We should look to fund that kind of advice instead of salami-slicing and looking at administratively convenient categories of problems. Advice provision needs to be organised around people's real needs and their need to be treated as an individual, not as an individual problem.
	Access to justice is one of the cornerstones of a free and civilised society. It is vital that everyone, particularly the most vulnerable, has equal access to the law, no matter who they are, where they live or how much money they have. The Government's consultation proposes to remove access to justice for the most vulnerable. Is that access to justice, or justice denied?

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. More than 20 hon. and right hon. Members have applied to speak in the debate, as a result of which I have imposed a limit of five minutes on each Back-Bench contribution. I simply remind Members that they are not obliged to use their full five minutes if they do not wish to do so. I am keen to get everyone in, but Members need to help me to help them, and to help each other.

Anna Soubry: I declare an interest at the outset, because as you and others may know, Mr Speaker, until my election in May, I worked for 16 years as a criminal barrister in Nottingham and other places such as Leicester and Derby.
	It is important to remember that there is a need to make cuts in public expenditure-that is common ground in the House. We have had many debates on where the blame for that lies, and we could continue them, but I suggest that that would not be helpful this afternoon. We are where we are. No Government Member welcomes having to make such cuts, but we have the largest deficit of any G20 country and, with considerable regret, the Government have been left in a position in which they have no alternative but to make severe cuts in public expenditure, including on legal aid.

Debbie Abrahams: Does the hon. Lady accept the Citizens Advice report that says that the Government's proposals will not only limit access to justice but increase public expenditure?

Anna Soubry: I do not know about the latter point. I have been in contact with the citizens advice bureau in Broxtowe, and I have made it very clear to Nottinghamshire county council that it is imperative to exercise great care in cutting back the budget of that CAB. The Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have spoken about that and it is recognised that citizens advice bureaux do a magnificent job. Every Member of the House knows that, because their case loads would increase enormously without them. There is a danger that in these difficult times, they will have to deal with more cases, and it is imperative that they have the resources they need.

Stephen Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the role of citizens advice bureaux is preventive and enabling? They focus not on generating unnecessary litigation, but on preventing crisis. Therefore, properly resourced citizens advice bureaux will actually save money.

Anna Soubry: Good point, well made, if I may say so, Mr Deputy Speaker.  [ Interruption. ] Sorry, did I say Mr Deputy Speaker? [Hon. Members: "Yes!"] That is outrageous. I apologise most sincerely, Mr Speaker.
	I ask the Minister carefully to consider these cuts in legal aid. Many would agree with me that it is imperative that we ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society do not suffer when we make these sorts of cuts. It is also important to protect the interests of those citizens who cannot protect themselves, and I have two examples regarding the reduction in eligibility for legal aid in the family division.
	A father who is denied contact with his children will no longer be eligible for legal aid. I submit that that cannot be right, not only because of the father's rights to see his children but because of the rights of the children, who have no access to justice. Their interests must be protected by society-they need to see their father. Likewise, if a mother has separated from the father of her children and he then threatens to take them overseas, she too will no longer be eligible for legal aid. That is not only unfair on her as she will not want her children taken overseas, but not fair on her children who will want to have contact with both their parents.
	Former colleagues of mine at the Bar have told me that they have many concerns, including in the area of housing. Somebody who is living in squalid housing conditions will more than likely have been eligible for legal aid in the past. That will continue to be the case in many circumstances. However, my concern is that legal aid will no longer be available so that people in that situation can force a landlord to make repairs-to begin to solve the problem before it becomes the sort of problem that would still be eligible for legal aid.
	I am told-I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland)-that we are paying £24.7 million in legal aid for welfare claims. In my time in this House, it has struck me that one reason why so many people come to their MPs and to the CABs with their cases-and eventually have to go to the law-is the profound failings of the Department for Work and Pensions. One of the best things that we could do is ensure that that Department is working properly, efficiently and effectively, because that would save us considerable amounts of money. As a new Member, I found it astonishing that we actually have MP-dedicated hotlines for our caseworkers to ring to sort out problems that should never have arisen but have done so because of the ineffectualness of the Department. I urge the Government to ensure that we sort that out.
	Finally, I make a plea for the Bar, which has had no increase in fees for decades. Yet again the criminal Bar is being asked to reduce its fees by 10%. Prosecuting counsel who are prosecuting a rapist or a persistent dwelling house burglar will be paid a fixed fee of £60. Sometimes members of the criminal Bar work for less than the interpreter in court, and invariably they are paid considerably less than the medical expert who may be assisting them in their work.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am sure that the Minister will have heard all these points and I look forward to the action that will result.

Karen Buck: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on introducing this debate. She spoke with enormous clarity and mapped out the ways in which the cuts in legal aid will have an impact on our constituents. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) who made many points with which I agree, including a warning to beware labelling all lawyers as fat cats. Legal aid lawyers work extremely hard for relatively modest remuneration, and we should remember that.
	I do not wish to repeat the key points that these cuts represent a false economy; that there are real dangers in taking whole areas out of the scope of legal aid because so many cases are complex, and cases such as debt and housing run into each other and cannot be separated out; or that there are limits to the value of phone advice. These are very important points, but I will not dwell on them further.
	I want to make three further points. First, if there was ever a time to be scaling back on legal aid, particularly in civil and social welfare law, this is not it. We are seeing massive upheavals in public service delivery: in education, to which I will return; in housing, through the proposals in the Localism Bill, which will introduce short-term tenancies; in welfare, with £18 billion being taken out of the welfare budget through the cuts in housing benefit; in disability benefits; and, as mentioned, in rising unemployment and the broader economic context.

Rehman Chishti: Does the hon. Lady not accept that the current cost of legal aid is unsustainable? We are spending £38 per head of population on legal aid, whereas in Australia it is £9, and in France £3. These reforms are therefore essential to get our economy back on track.

Karen Buck: There are so many points with which to respond to that intervention. We cannot compare systems between countries. It is not helpful because the legal systems and the delivery of legal aid support are so different. The Labour Front-Bench team are willing to discuss the legal aid budget, particularly in some aspects of criminal legal aid. There are areas in which savings can be made, but I am particularly concerned about civil and social welfare law.
	My second point, which was made strongly during an earlier Westminster Hall debate, concerns the impact of these cuts-given the speed and depth at which they are being made-on the legal aid firms, law centres, citizens advice bureaux and other advice agencies. In many cases, they draw on legal aid for part of their funding. The removal of legal aid funding is like a game of Jenga: we start pulling out the sticks and the whole edifice is in danger of collapse. I think we will see a massive, unplanned spate of service closures across the country, and we will not be able to control where they happen. There will be advice deserts, and many of our constituents will struggle as a consequence.
	I will provide an example of what I am talking about. This reform is being delivered at the same time as cuts in local authority spending. The London grant scheme is being repatriated to the boroughs without ring-fencing, which means that advice services in London are at the whim of local boroughs that are themselves under pressure. Therefore, the grant funding that should complement the Legal Services Commission funding is unlikely to be there. That will clearly impact severely on citizens advice bureaux and law centres. As has been said, politicians will regret taking this decision. I am already seeing-I am sure that other hon. Members are seeing it too-people coming to me for what should be a legal advice and representation service that in many cases we are not qualified, and certainly not resourced, to provide. I predict with absolute certainty that our surgeries will be flooded with more and more desperate and angry people who cannot get the proper representation they should.
	Finally, I want to touch on the disproportionate impact on women, children, people with disabilities and people from black and minority communities. We know from the scope of the areas affected that these cuts will fall most heavily on them. We have heard about family law and asylum-seeking communities, particularly asylum-seeking children, who will be left at risk because of these cuts. However, I want to make a particular case for education and special educational needs. In my borough there is a particular problem of children without school places-350 were without a place before Christmas. Those children and their families need advice and representation, and the parents seeking to take action against their local authority for denying them a statement of special educational needs are a particularly vulnerable group. We know from the number of tribunals that succeed that 82% of parents' appeals that reach tribunal are upheld. The removal of assistance from those parents, many of whom simply do not have the skills or resources to make their own case, will mean that their children will not get the education to which they are entitled.
	I urge the Minister to rethink many aspects of the proposals, in particular the narrowness of the scope that is being applied to legal aid cases and the arbitrary way in which the services are being withdrawn.

Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on opening the debate and on setting out her genuine concerns about the impact that some of the changes could have on her constituents. I accept that, as a new Member, she can to some extent deny responsibility for what came before, because she was not a Member under the previous Government. I look around her, however, and see ex-Ministers who know full well that they would have been taking the same decisions as we are, and I find their tutting and shaking of heads intellectually extremely dishonest.

Robert Buckland: I should like to reinforce that point. There were no fewer than 30 consultations on legal aid between 2006 and 2010, which gives the lie to the argument that there is a divide on this matter. Both parties were faced with the same challenges, so let us approach the debate on that basis.

Tom Brake: rose-

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I hope that he will confirm to me that he is not accusing any Member of being personally dishonest, because we cannot have that in the Chamber.

Tom Brake: Of course I am not accusing any ex-Minister of being personally dishonest.
	I thank the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for his intervention. I think that Members on both sides of the House regret the decisions that are having to be taken, but it is incumbent on Ministers and Members on this side to come forward with solutions. If the Opposition want to be taken seriously, they need to offer solutions as well.

Kate Green: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the solution that the Government are proposing-namely, the wholesale removal of significant categories of social welfare law-is the most damaging and unsatisfactory way to proceed?

Tom Brake: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), is listening carefully and that there might be some adjustments to what is being proposed. We need to hear solutions, however. We do not need to hear a list of concerns without its being followed by solutions. We all face this problem.
	I want to use this debate as an opportunity to raise a couple of specific points, about which I have written to the Minister. I thank him for meeting me, Steve Triner and other representatives of my local citizens advice bureau to discuss their concerns about the proposals. I have also recently had meetings with three solicitors in my constituency office. Like other Members on both sides of the House, I too have received a wide range of briefings from various organisations. I received a briefing yesterday from the Equal Rights Trust, and I want to raise a specific point in that regard. I hope that the Minister will be aware of the points that have been raised with me, as I have already written to him about them.
	The first point relates to medical negligence. There is concern about the impact that the changes could have, and whether particularly difficult and complicated medical cases for which the NHS would previously have taken responsibility might be passed over to social services, resulting in their having to take on the financial costs of, for example, the most serious obstetric mistakes involving brain damage in very young children. That is a very specific issue, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to it.
	My second point relates to family law. Interestingly, in my meeting with the solicitors, they were not particularly concerned about the idea of a telephone helpline. They were, however, concerned about what would happen beyond that stage, in regard to referrals. They wondered whether there would be a means of identifying at the beginning of the process that someone could not be dealt with by telephone and that a face-to-face meeting would be required.

Annette Brooke: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that people with mental health issues might not get equal access to justice when they are involved in family disputes?

Tom Brake: My hon. Friend makes a strong point, and I hope that Ministers will listen to such points in the debate and during the wider consultation.
	In family law, people are rightly encouraged to pursue mediation in cases that are currently supported through legal aid. During the meeting, the point was made to me that Government bodies and associated organisations are often unwilling to pursue a route that involves mediation. Government, Government Departments and associated bodies will be required to show a willingness to engage in mediation, if that is now the direction the Government are moving in.
	I have already made a couple of points about telephone advice, but there are also concerns about whether any local knowledge will be embedded in any telephone advisory service, and about conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of that, particularly if there are a limited number of suppliers to whom a case can be referred.
	During the meeting, CAB representatives expressed the concern that they would now be in the position of having to take up very personal cases, and therefore be very much in the front line rather than acting as an independent body, so they might end up having to represent a particular individual against the other party in the case. They are worried about how that would impact on their independence. They are also worried that a lot of court time would be lost, particularly if more people ended up representing themselves. There is a good job to be done in making that process clearer and simpler, so that if more people do represent themselves there is less risk that they fail to turn up with the right papers or on time.

Helen Grant: The hon. Gentleman says these changes rely on people being able to help themselves, but what about people with learning difficulties or mental health problems, or people who cannot speak English very well, and what about people who are too frightened to face their opponent?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The Minister has heard those concerns, and I hope he will seek to address them.
	The chair of my local CAB has highlighted the fact that the financial inclusion fund will close at the end of March. I understand that transitional funding proposals are being looked at, and perhaps the Minister can respond on that point.
	The Equal Rights Trust raised with me the issue of stateless people, who will now be unable to claim legal aid unless they apply for asylum. Some unexpected consequences may flow from that. I hope the Minister will respond to that point at the end of the debate.
	This is clearly a very difficult issue for the Government, and I know the Minister will do everything he can to address it effectively. We do not like being in the position we are in, but we have to address this issue now.

Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing this important debate and commend her for her excellent speech.
	Given the welcome fact that so many Members want to contribute, I will confine my remarks to the impact of the Government's proposals on my local citizens advice bureau in Exeter, whereby it would lose all its welfare benefits funding, and funding for debt cases would be restricted to instances where there is an "immediate risk" of homelessness. Taken together, my CAB estimates that the changes will affect up to 700 cases a year in Exeter alone. The director of Exeter CAB, Steve Barriball, has described as "perverse" the fact that the Government are proposing to fund debt advice only when the client faces an immediate risk of homelessness. He says:
	"It is widely accepted that timely intervention is more productive and reduces costs elsewhere, such as County Court repossession and other action."
	As other Members have said, these changes represent a terrible false economy, and in the case of Exeter they come at the same time as the local authority, Devon county council, is proposing to cut its support to the CAB by a massive 20%, as part of its attempt to grapple with a 27% reduction in funding from central Government. Yet it is estimated that for every pound of public money spent on CAB services, the CAB saves the public purse £12.20.

Pat McFadden: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend is saying about his local citizens advice bureau. In Wolverhampton, the citizens advice bureau handles some 1,600 cases a year that are funded by such help, involving 26 employees. The local director has said:
	"The CAB would effectively go back 20 years in its development"
	if the current proposals go through. In response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who spoke a few moments ago, would my right hon. Friend care to contrast those proposals with the record of the Labour Government, who increased the funding to citizens advice bureaux when the recession was coming, precisely because we knew that there would be a greater need for debt advice as economic times got tough?

Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Indeed, I was about to make the point-gently, I hope-to the hon. Members for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that it is not good enough for Government Members to excuse every cut that this Government are implementing by talking about the need for fiscal consolidation. There is a clear choice to be made about the speed and degree of fiscal consolidation, and there is growing evidence that the speed and degree of fiscal consolidation being pursued by this Government is not only damaging important services such as the CAB, but damaging our economic recovery. All hon. Members need to do-

Rehman Chishti: rose -

Ben Bradshaw: No, sit down.
	All hon. Members need to do is look across the Atlantic at the example of the United States under Barack Obama, who is pursuing a Keynesian economic policy, like the one that we advocate, where growth was 3.5% in the last quarter, as opposed to a 0.5% contraction here. So please, let us have no more lectures from Government Members about there being no alternative to these savage cuts.
	For all the Government's rhetoric about the big society, the CAB is the big society in action. It is staffed mainly by volunteers, helping everyone, and in particular the vulnerable, and saves the state millions of pounds in the process by ensuring that people in difficulty do not fall into crisis, the fallout from which the state then has to pick up. The Government's proposed changes to legal aid and their impact on the work of CABs such as mine in Exeter will have a deeply damaging impact on the fabric of our communities and will cost us all far more in the long term. I therefore urge the Government to think again about this short-sighted and false economy.

Paul Uppal: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for introducing this debate. In the spirit of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), I want to take part not in a partisan way, but on the basis of trying to progress the debate. Other Members have spoken about employment, welfare benefits, education and immigration, but it is on clinical negligence that I wish to express some of the views that I have encountered at my weekly surgeries.
	The Government's view is that if legal aid for clinical negligence cases is removed, alternative funding will be available in the form of conditional fee arrangements, which will be funded on the basis of a success fee and after-the-event insurance. Under Lord Jackson's reforms, such fees will be unrecoverable from the losing party. The point that has been made to me, which I wish to highlight to the Minister, is that if legal aid is withdrawn and cases have to be funded by conditional fee agreements with insurance, there will be instances where the cost to the public purse may well be higher. For example, a solicitor at my surgery told me about a cerebral palsy case that settled for more than £3.75 million. The costs involved were more than £100,000. The case was legally aided, but if it had been funded through a conditional fee arrangement, with, say, a recoverable success fee of 60%, the total costs would have been £160,000. There would also have been a substantial after-the-event insurance premium, so the case would have cost the public purse far more than if it had been funded by legal aid. That is the position where cases are successful, and where the Legal Services Commission does not pay anything.
	I appreciate that some Members may have not followed the full argument, and I apologise for using legal jargon, but the fundamental point remains that although we may be saving legal aid costs, we may end up paying more into the national health service budget to cover legal fees and insurance premiums. In essence, we will have public money chasing public money, in a circle that will not deliver legal justice on a value-for-money basis. The counter-argument is that if Lord Jackson's recommendations are implemented in full, there will be no increase in costs, as success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums will not be recoverable from the losing party. However, Lord Jackson has recommended that damages be increased by 10% to make up for the shortfall in solicitors' costs, with a 25% cap to be deducted from damages. In the cerebral palsy case that I have mentioned, that means that the damages would have increased by £375,000, which would be an alarming escalation in public funds paid.
	I appreciate the difficulties caused to the Government by the escalating drain on the public purse, and I suspect that many measures relate to concern about the costs incurred by solicitors who are chasing ambulances or investigating spurious, unviable and unsuccessful cases. However, I will say to the Minister, who I know has a great deal of expertise in this field, that clinical negligence cases are now conducted by a small group of specialist solicitors who focus on dealing with complex cases. It is increasingly rare for solicitors to tread the old route of simply applying for investigative help certificates for every client who walks through the door with a potential claim, because the cases are just not viable.
	The special cases unit of the Legal Services Commission, which is based in Brighton, now seems to apply a robust criterion to all applications for LSC funding in order to ensure that cases with merit are granted funding. David Keegan, director of the commission's high cost cases unit, has said:
	"We need to ensure that access to justice is as wide as possible and it is in the best interest of clients."
	I would add only that those objectives must be reconciled in the most cost-effective way possible.
	I think it pertinent that Lord Jackson's objective in conducting his year-long costs review was to make recommendations for the promotion of access to justice. If legal aid is no longer available, the costs may become disproportionate.
	I am acutely aware of the Government's laudable intentions, but I worry about unintended consequences. The point that has been made to me most forcefully, time and again, is that if we genuinely want to save costs, it is imperative for the national health service litigation authority to make early admissions of liability rather than protracting settlement of cases. What tends to happen is that no one in a hospital wishes to admit negligence, and a game of bluff develops. Solicitors and the NHSLA conduct a legal battle, which is often settled at the last minute. That is why we see headlines about cases involving liability claims amounting to tens of thousands of pounds running up legal bills of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Like most people, I cannot understand the logic of that. In such cases, early settlement would avoid a pointless game of poker with our money, the emotions of patients, and the good will of staff in the NHS.

Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing time for this important debate. I declare an interest as one who has in the past undertaken publicly funded work both as a solicitor and as a barrister.
	I am a member of the Select Committee on Justice, which is ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and which is currently conducting research into this issue. We have received an unprecedented amount of evidence from concerned groups, and I shall voice some of their concerns in the limited time available to me.
	I believe that the proposals in the Government's consultation document are unethical, and will have long-standing and drastic effects on the make-up of our legal system. They will effectively pave the way for the creation of a "market" for the supply of legal assistance, and I believe that the quality of the assistance that is available will decrease. As a result, the wealthiest in society will be OK while those who are not wealthy will not.
	The consultation document notes-with, I believe, unintended irony-that
	"access to justice is the hallmark of a civilised society".
	We must do all we can to uphold that principle, but the proposed reforms will cause the legal aid market to be driven by cost rather than by the needs of clients and the quality of advice that they are given. I believe that a move to fixed fees for all cases will result in suppliers taking only the least complicated cases, which will mean that the most vulnerable will be more frequently left without legal advice. The need to generate profits will lead to firms taking on unqualified staff, which in turn may well lower the quality of service.
	Gwynedd Law Society has written to me drawing attention to a real danger in Gwynedd and Anglesey, where, for a population of approximately 190,000, only 10 firms currently provide civil legal aid. There are no large firms in the area. Most of those firms assist clients in both Welsh and English.
	The cuts in legal aid will be felt deeply in many areas of society, but the worst effect will be on the most vulnerable, which is extremely worrying. There is a letter in today's  The  Times signed by a number of experts in family law, among them Stephen Cobb QC, chair of the Family Law Bar Association, and David Allison of Resolution. I cannot read the letter into the record, much as I should like to, but I commend it to Members.
	Family lawyers will undoubtedly be giving up in droves, creating advice deserts, and it is our children who will suffer. I have with me several case studies showing that under these proposals mothers will be able to do nothing where children are not returned to them in certain circumstances. I find it very worrying that legal aid will be removed for ancillary relief in divorce cases. Most pressingly, ancillary matters such as child custody and maintenance will not be dealt with sensibly, and it is difficult to overestimate the devastating effect this will wreak on children caught up in these disputes. Indeed, the psychological effects that can be wrought on children when care is not taken in resolving disputes can be deep and long lasting. The justice system has a duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society-that was, of course, one of the founding principles of legal aid. Who are the most vulnerable in society? I would say that it must be our children. Overwhelmingly, the impact of the proposals on the most vulnerable members of our society will be catastrophic. I am talking about people receiving advice on debt, housing and welfare, as well as children standing in the middle of these disputes.
	We must not allow these changes to be made. In the name of decency, ethics and providing decent cover for those less able to look after themselves, we cannot allow them to be made. We must not hold such an integral component of our justice system hostage to efficiency savings. If we do so, the effects we will see will be brutal.
	I ask the Minister to respond to one last point. I hope that this consultation will be a real one. The one on court closures left me underwhelmed, because it was deeply unimpressive, flawed and probably pointless.

Guto Bebb: It is a privilege to contribute to this debate. I wish to discuss the impact on rural areas, including my constituency in north Wales. I also wish to associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I could just replicate a lot of what she said, but I wish to concentrate on the issues specific to north Wales.
	One of the concerns among people in north Wales and certainly among people in my constituency is that these proposals have the potential to be another attack on services available in rural areas. Only one firm not based on the north Wales coast offers legal aid in my constituency. Therefore, inland only one firm offers such services. The consultation document would result in that firm giving up that provision, which would be a loss to the area, because people would have to travel to gain access to legal advice and legal services. In this age of high fuel costs and so on, there would, thus, be an added burden before people could even access services that might be available on the coast. People in rural areas are concerned about whether the proposals are, again, an indication of a Government retreating from offering services across the whole of this country, and that is an issue to address.
	Another specific issue affecting my constituents in north Wales relates to the fact that they often try to access services in Welsh. This is a crucial point, because my constituency is fully bilingual. On the coast, 20% to 25% of people speak Welsh as a first language, but inland the percentage is significantly higher. When people are dealing with real issues of concern and are trying to access support at crucial times in their lives, their ability to access those services in their mother tongue is very important. The impact assessment highlighted that issue in relation to services in cities in England and in south Wales, but I wish to ensure that the Department is aware that there is an issue to address in relation to services provided in Welsh.
	One of my concerns relates to the consultation document's reference to the need to provide a direct telephone line service. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) is well aware that, although Welsh speakers would often prefer a service to be provided in Welsh, when they access services by telephone they almost feel that they have to speak in English first. When the service is available in their locality and they are able to walk into the offices of a firm that they know and have used in the past, they are able to talk to the solicitors in Welsh. The fact that we are proposing to offer so many legal aid services through the medium of a telephone line raises concerns about the provision of a fully bilingual service in a Welsh context.
	Since I was elected in May, I have been astounded by the amount of quasi-legal casework. I find myself dealing with cases on which I am not qualified to offer advice or guidance. Before coming to the Chamber this afternoon, I asked whether my insurance as an MP would be sufficient to cover me when I am asked to offer legal advice and guidance. I have a real concern that as we are dealing with these significant changes to the provision of legal aid services, we are also looking at a significant reduction in the funding of citizens advice bureaux. As a result, MPs will end up dealing with cases that they are not qualified to deal with in a way that will be very unsatisfactory to the individuals seeking advice and guidance. That will also be very unsatisfactory for MPs, who could damage their reputation by offering advice and guidance that they are not qualified to give.
	I recognise that the Government have to deal with the deficit. I am very pleased that the issue we are debating is currently under consultation, but that consultation has to be real. I shall certainly contribute to it, as will many members of the law profession in my constituency. My real concern is that if the proposals are not amended we will end up with a situation in which people in many parts of rural Britain and rural Wales do not have access to legal services. I am seriously concerned that some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency will have to access legal services only by telephone in a language that is not their mother tongue. I would find that unacceptable.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind colleagues that Front-Bench speakers will be called from 5.38 pm or thereabouts, so there is real pressure on time.

Mary Glindon: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing the debate. Unlike her, I do not have any experience of giving legal advice or doing legal aid work, but I did benefit from the legal aid system many years ago when I successfully pursued maintenance payments for my daughter.
	My reason for speaking in the debate is that I was alerted to the Government's proposed reforms by a constituent of mine who practises as a solicitor in a well-respected law firm in Newcastle upon Tyne. She spelled out to me just how devastating the cuts would be for many of my most vulnerable constituents who need legal aid now or might need it in future. The Government claim that they want to be fair, but removing the right to help with legal costs from those who need it to obtain appropriate representation when they are making a legal challenge is overtly denying those very people a right to justice. Indeed, the chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Nicholas Green, QC, has described the cuts as a "shrinkage of justice".
	Like many MPs, I have been contacted by a number of organisations on this matter, each making a case for retaining the £350 million in the legal aid budget. They were all concerned about the range of areas being taken out of scope because of the huge cut in funds being made towards 2014. The Law Society has stated that
	"the civil legal aid scope cuts, in social welfare law, appear to be targeted against areas of law, which are most relevant to the poorest and most vulnerable members of society".
	That is borne out by the information I have received from the director of the citizens advice bureaux that operate across the borough of North Tyneside, serving the constituencies of both North Tyneside and Tynemouth. He advised me that the cuts to legal aid are a double whammy, as the Government have just announced the end of North Tyneside CAB's financial inclusion fund from April this year. So, with cuts to legal aid, North Tyneside's CAB will lose two and a half debt specialist posts and one and a half benefit specialist posts, and the end of the financial inclusion fund means that a further four and a half posts will go.
	Last year, our CAB handled more than 72,000 cases. Staff dealt with cases involving £25 million-worth of debt, not including mortgages, and managed to write off £4.5 million-worth of that debt for local people. Furthermore, with work carried out on benefits this year, the CAB in North Tyneside is projecting benefit gains of nearly £900,000. In the light of those figures, it is easy to imagine the hardship that will be caused by the loss of funding that to date has made such a difference to constituents, whose only avenue of help is the legal aid route.

Rehman Chishti: On page 5.5 of the 2010 Labour manifesto, on which the hon. Lady stood for election, her party committed to
	"find greater savings in legal aid".
	How does she intend to satisfy that commitment if she does not support the changes that the Government are bringing in?

Mary Glindon: Our Front-Bench team do not deny that certain efficiencies had to be made. In fact, as was said previously, they committed money to help during the recession.

Diane Abbott: The problem with the proposed cuts in legal aid is that they are wholly counter-productive. The Government may save money in the legal aid budget, but they will incur expenditure in other budgets. There are ways to save money in the Ministry of Justice budget, and I will touch on them in my speech.

Mary Glindon: Mark Almond made it plain to me that the work carried out by the citizens advice bureau with the help of legal aid funding definitely helps the most vulnerable-those whose lives are the most chaotic, or who have literacy and other language problems. Self-representation, as proposed in the Bill, is a non-starter for that group of constituents.
	In debt advice, private debt advisers are not the answer. The Government's own study on private debt advice found that more than 80% of those businesses provide incorrect and inappropriate advice, often at a cost to the client, and that they refer clients to advisers who are, in fact, debt collectors. Do the Government really want to impoverish the poorest more by directing them down that path?
	The most vulnerable would, again, not benefit from the proposed telephone helpline. In North Tyneside, it is estimated that less than 10% of citizens advice bureau legal aid clients would be able to access the system, because of literacy or language problems. Such a system could be considered only as an adjunct to the present system.
	Through the work of Lord Carter's review, the Labour Government made efforts to find savings, always with the aim of striving to protect social welfare law. Labour Members believe that savings could be found in other areas to continue that protection. As the director of North Tyneside CAB told me, although losing jobs and expertise is a massive problem, his biggest regret is that the changes to legal aid will fail clients. The coalition Government need to take heed of this debate and of the views expressed by the many experts who are making the case for the 500,000 people who will lose out as a result of the cuts. The cuts are not fair and definitely not just.

Amber Rudd: It is interesting to observe in the remarks made by those on both sides of the House that we are not talking about lawyers. As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) said in her opening remarks, this debate is more about trained, local, part-time and sometimes voluntary advisers who step in to help the vulnerable in need of advice. They work in citizens advice bureaux and other organisations in the voluntary sector and, in my opinion, although often not lawyers themselves, they are a rare example of legal provision at a low cost to the public purse.
	I accept that reductions are necessary in expenditure and in the deficit that is, as we know, costing us £120 million a day-a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I am sorry the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is not in his place, as I am sure he would challenge me on that and we could have an interesting debate. However, as each of us has only a few minutes to speak, I will plough on. The problem with the proposed cuts is that they will be expensive in the long run and that, as set out, they will not do what the coalition Government have set out to do, which is to protect and help the vulnerable.
	I represent a town, Hastings, that is wonderful in many ways but deprived in others. The unemployment rate is high at 5.6%, compared with a UK rate of 3.5%, and we need the support of agencies to advise those on low incomes and the unemployed. In my town, agencies have formed consortia to win social welfare law contracts. They have vocal and powerful advocates who have been to see me. I mention in particular Julie Eason and, from the citizens advice bureau, Dina Christadoulis. They have convinced me of the need for the service that they provide. The average cost of what they provide to clients is £200 or less. Even if what they do takes three times as long, that is the cost-it is really good value. We need to make cuts, but that area of the front line is not the place for them. We should not be taking social welfare out of scope.

Stephen Timms: I find myself in agreement with what the hon. Lady is saying. If legal aid is to be withdrawn as a source of funding for exactly the kind of work that she describes, does she accept that the Government really must find an alternative source elsewhere?

Amber Rudd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that comment. I am speaking up on behalf of the agencies in Hastings precisely because I value the work that they do in helping the vulnerable there. I also make the point, as several Members have done, that removing the funding is not efficient for costs. He is absolutely correct that we need to find another source of funding in order to continue to protect those services.
	The advice from those agencies is crucial to the clients, who in many cases cannot represent themselves. The agency I spoke with had kept records that showed clearly that 56% of its clients have long-term illness or disability and that 68% have long-term mental health problems. I am worried that some of my most vulnerable constituents may really struggle to manage their casework and prepare for a tribunal hearing without the help of legal aid-funded services.
	I welcome the simplified welfare system that the Government are working on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has some excellent proposals that will be coming through, which I hope and believe will make the welfare system much simpler. Until then, we must recognise the situation we are in and acknowledge that errors are made and that vulnerable people who cannot represent themselves must be able to have some representation.
	Another benefit of having agencies work with those clients is that they can recognise when there is no case. If we allow individuals to represent themselves entirely, some will clog up the tribunals. The agencies are very effective at discouraging people who do not have a case from progressing with it, so only the cases that merit the sort of attention that the clients are seeking actually get it. In Hastings, for instance, the consortia to which I have referred have not lost an appeal for a client for employment support allowance or incapacity benefit since last April, which is testament to their right choice of clients and their professionalism. Last year they provided a service to around 20,000 clients in my area, and collectively they have more than £270,000-worth of contracts, which represents more than half the advice sector in Hastings.
	We all know that local government funding is under pressure, and a key element of the funding it provides is to citizens advice bureaux. Given the cuts to local funding and the proposals for legal aid, I am worried about the future viability of the agencies that do so much work and whose advice is critical in a town with above-average needs. The social welfare contracts account for only 4.5% of the total legal aid bill. The early intervention that they provide is critical; if the advisers get involved early, they can stop things escalating and stop individuals getting to the stage where they might lose their houses.
	I urge Ministers to consider the costs and consequences of the proposed changes to legal aid. We need to find alternative sources of funding to support the agencies if they are no longer to receive funds from that source. I associate myself with the argument made by other Members that, unless we find alternative funding, those of us who, like me, are not lawyers will have to train up pretty quickly because of the size of casework that we will receive.

Diane Abbott: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on bringing forward this important topic for debate. For as long as I have worked in the community, legally aided lawyers and law centres have often been at the forefront of the fight for justice for marginalised groups who could not otherwise have made their voices heard. Those were often groups of people who were not necessarily getting help from their trade union, their councillors or their MP, because lawyers can often pinpoint issues, because of the cases coming to them, before they come to the attention of politicians. Because I know that so many legally aided lawyers and practitioners who work in citizens advice bureaux and law centres are often extraordinarily dedicated, I deprecate the tendency of Governments of all colours-my Government were just as bad-to talk about legal aid just in terms of the money going to lawyers. On the tendency to slide into talking about fat cat lawyers, I can say with confidence that, since the Carter reforms, nobody has made a fortune in legal aid law practice. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I can hear hon. Members from both sides supporting me on that point.

Rehman Chishti: Prior to becoming a Member, I was a criminal barrister for a number of years, and, to confirm what the hon. Lady says, I must say that as a barrister at Crown court one would earn £40 for a mention and could be there all day. The idea that barristers or lawyers are fat cats is completely wrong, and I fully support what she says.

Diane Abbott: But sadly, when Governments of all colours consider legal aid, they seem to zero in on the lawyers and the money that they make, rather than the millions of people whom they help.
	I repeat what Opposition Members have said about the potential of the reforms to undermine totally the law centre movement. Nobody who has seen people queuing outside their law centre for help could support any action by any Government which undermined that movement. I must add, however, that the legal aid reforms will also undermine the practice of many high street solicitors, who are often close to and help their community. A disproportionate number of them are black and minority ethnic solicitors, and I do not believe that the Government have fully considered how the reforms will undermine the structure for providing the legal advice, help and support on which communities rely.
	Earlier, a Member said that one reason why people have recourse to lawyers is the inefficiency of the Department for Work and Pensions, to which I should add the inefficiencies of local councils and the immigration service and the inefficiencies and, sometimes, unfairness of education authorities. But what are we to do? We acknowledge the systemic inefficiencies in many parts of the public sector, but are we going to leave tens of thousands of people to suffer injustice and unfairness in order to save money in the short term on the legal aid budget?
	I also want to address the limits of phone advice. Talking down a phone might be all well and good for people in wealthier areas, but in the inner city too many people do not have English as their first language, and if English is their first language they might be inarticulate, afraid and inhibited. In 20 years as a Member, I have had to advise hundreds of thousands of people. Often, they come in and mumble about some issue or other, and only after carefully questioning them, looking them in the eye and showing them my sympathy do they tell me their real problem. If we submit such people to talking down a phone, we will find that their issues are completely lost. They will put the phone down, never having explained what they really wanted to talk about.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend's constituency and mine are different in many ways, but one similarity has been commented on repeatedly over the years: they both have high levels of deprivation. Does she agree that, if we take away access to organisations such as Kirkby Unemployed Centre, Merseyside Welfare Rights and Knowsley citizens advice bureau, those levels of deprivation-in her constituency and in mine-will go up?

Diane Abbott: There is no question but that they will go up, because we are talking not about frivolity, serial litigants or people who litigate for fun, but about people who have to go to law to obtain the basic rights and fairness that we in the Chamber take for granted. On the idea of people in communities in the east end of London picking up a phone, Ministers are not being realistic. They must not understand what happens in some parts of the country if they think that going on the phone is a substitute for dealing with somebody who is skilled, looks a person in the eye, can see that they are nervous, knows how to put them at ease and can really draw from them the issue at the heart of their problems.
	Opposition Members understand the need to consider the whole administration of justice budget, and there is a lot to be said for encouraging people with marital disputes to try mediation first, rather than going to law. Indeed, I have never heard of a divorce case in which tempers were sweetened by the involvement of lawyers. I do not reject out of hand the notion of encouraging people in marital disputes to go to mediation, but there are other ways of saving money in the Ministry of Justice budget, notably the organisation of the courts. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are wasted every year when cases collapse because people do not turn up and things have not been organised properly. Let us consider saving money through the organisation of the courts before considering these ill-thought-out cuts in legal aid. Government Members have referred to the NHS. It is better to identify liability earlier and save all the costs in contesting cases where people know perfectly well that in the end they will have to settle in some form or fashion.
	It is not enough for Ministers to say, "Labour's spent all the money and that is why we're doing this." They have to understand that if we are serious about a big society and the role of Government, we have to ensure that the most deprived and marginalised communities have minimal protection, and part of that, in my mind, is access to justice and the rule of law. I sincerely hope, on behalf of my constituents and Hackney law centre, which is a tremendous organisation, that this is a genuine consultation and that Ministers will listen to some of the things that they hear in this Chamber this afternoon.

Robert Buckland: I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in her very proper analysis of the issue. This is not about lawyers; it is about access to justice. I am glad to see the Minister agreeing with those sentiments in the sense that the Government are not indulging in character assassination as regards practitioners in law.
	There have been some excellent speeches. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for getting this debate the time that it deserves. I was happy to support her in her bid. I wish there were more time, as five minutes can hardly do the subject justice. It was a pleasure for me to take part in the Westminster Hall debate sponsored by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who took part earlier. I do not propose to reiterate the points that I made in that debate.
	I put on record my thanks to the Department for having answered some of the questions that I have been tabling about the breakdown of the costs of civil legal aid for the last year for which figures were available-2008-2009. The figure of £24.7 million in legal help for welfare benefit cases, as alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), is startling, and we should pay close attention to it. There is no doubt, as other Members have said, that there are serious deficiencies in the decision-making processes as regards benefit entitlements. I am utterly convinced that that large amount of money could have been saved if that system were more sound. I urge the Minister to work as closely as he can with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that it starts to take a share of the burden of the cost of representation.

John McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Buckland: I am sorry, but I cannot take interventions on this occasion because I want to ensure that other speakers have their say. As I said, so much to talk about, so little time.
	Let me pray in aid Wiltshire law centre in my constituency, which carries out debt, welfare and housing work. To put it bluntly, it is set to lose the vast majority of its income if these proposals are implemented. May I put in a plea to the Minister to work as hard as he can with all agencies of Government to ensure that places like Wiltshire law centre get some form of block funding to ensure that its valuable work continues? It is as fundamental as that. I am worried that if we lose that service, my constituents will have to travel a very long distance to get legal aid, because most private firms in Swindon now do not offer the services offered by the law centre.
	I have spoken in the past about special educational needs and education law. I reiterate my plea to the Minister to ensure that when the education Green Paper is published in March the forms of alternative dispute resolution, whether it be mediation or other forms of ADR, are properly explored and set out so that the need for legal representation in those cases becomes a thing of the past.
	I have drilled down as far as I can to find out why this country spends more per head on legal aid than other country. The National Audit Office paper on the procurement of legal aid observed that during its control period in the latter part of last decade, England and Wales prosecuted more than a million more people than any comparator country. We have to look at why we spend a lot on legal aid. I do not think that it is a problem. I think it shows that we take prosecution seriously. The only real comparison we can make is with other common law countries, and they do not prosecute as many cases as England and Wales. Comparisons with France are utterly irrelevant. The French spend five times more on the judicial system than us because of their inquisitorial process. We must focus on comparisons with other common law countries. The simple fact is that we litigate more in England and Wales. As I said, I make no apology for the fact that this country brings more prosecutions than any other country. That issue should be dealt with in other debates. It is a causal issue, rather than being about the symptoms that legal aid has to deal with.
	On domestic violence, my plea to the Minister is that we work hard on getting the definition right. I suggest that it is not right in the Green Paper. We should be considering courses of conduct rather than individual incidents. I would be happy to work with him on that matter.

Julie Hilling: I join in the congratulations to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing this debate on an issue that will adversely affect so many of our constituents.
	Before Christmas, a woman came into my surgery in desperation. She was trying to extricate herself from a violent relationship. As is normal with such relationships, although she is now safe, her ex-partner continues to manipulate her and to exert his power by agreeing to things and then going back on his word. Even though she earns only about £20,000, she had been turned down for legal aid and was in a terrible situation. She was paying for a solicitor, but it had reached a point where she could not ask them to do anything else because she could not afford to pay them. As an ordinary person, she was terrified of running up debt, so she made sure that she paid all her bills immediately, even though that meant that she frequently did not have enough money to be able to eat. Of course, celebrating Christmas was out of the question. If the Government go ahead with their plan to reduce civil legal aid, my surgery will be full of people like that.
	Bolton citizens advice bureau sent me a snapshot of an ordinary day at its drop-in service. On 11 January, its social welfare law drop-in service was open for six hours. Sixty-three new clients walked in off the street. That does not include the 31 people who went in for return appointments. If the proposals to reform legal aid had been implemented and if the Citizens Advice financial inclusion fund had been withdrawn, it would have been able to deal with only five or six of those people.
	The stories of many of those people are heartbreaking and many of their cases involved an element of benefits, with claims being refused, delayed or wrongly calculated. Many of them did not have enough money to feed themselves or their children, such as the lone parent with three children who was receiving only £47.50 a week, or the lone father who had received no benefit for his 18-month-old and was told he would have to wait another four weeks for any money. A number of them were in imminent risk of losing their homes because of failed businesses. Some had employment issues and others had immigration issues. Whatever the issue, the common thread was that they went to Citizens Advice because they had nowhere else to go. They could not afford to buy legal support, unlike the people who were pursuing them. Their cases involved debt, wages that had not been paid and the refusal to pay benefits.
	Surely, it is a mark of a civilised society that all people have access to legal justice. Surely, in 2011 we should not be returning to olden days when the poor simply had to accept what the rich and powerful did to them. Of course, the equality impact assessment states that females and black or minority ethnic people will be more adversely affected, and it cannot rule out a disproportionate effect on the disabled. The Government do not appear to be taking action to redress that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield talked about the financial cost of removing legal aid, but what about the other costs? What will happen to the lone father who is getting no benefit? Will his child go into care? What will happen to the person who loses their house? Will they go into emergency accommodation and have to be rehoused by the state? What about the long-term trauma of children caught up in the problems? Will they then fail in school and in their future life? The Government's proposal is wrong, morally, ethically and financially.
	Citizens advice bureaux and community law centres are the Government's big society in action-a combination of volunteers and professionals working in partnership to provide a service for their communities. It is often the only service for those who are the most disadvantaged. Like every other voluntary group, however, the service costs. Even if projects are run entirely by volunteers, they still need funding for training and resources, premises and running costs.
	I will not argue that legal aid needs no reform, but the proposed reform is supported by no one. Even the most commercial firm of solicitors says that it will have a detrimental effect on the most vulnerable in society. I say to the Government, please do not send us back to the days when justice was just for the rich and the privileged. I plead with them to rethink their proposals.

Brian Binley: I had hoped to speak for about 25 minutes, but I find that I have to cut my speech down to four minutes, so I shall be to the point and abrupt.
	I wish to make a plea to the Minister about lawyers who fight against corporate, local government and about Government bodies that are under serious pressure to make serious cuts and sometimes get things wrong to the detriment of the most vulnerable in our communities. I wish to set out a particular case to the Minister, because I believe that the Legal Services Commission is already taking action to cut expenditure sizeably, but should not be doing it in quite the way that it is.
	I wish to talk about a company called Hossacks Solicitors, which is one of the 78 legal companies that fight on behalf of community services. It has done a tremendous job-I have been on the wrong end of it on occasions in the past. However, in 2010 the LSC, which had granted a contract to Hossacks to fight a legal matter, said that it had issued the contract in error. The company disputed that fact on the grounds that it had entered into a binding legal contract with the LSC. The LSC replied on 6 January this year, terminating the contract in its entirety. The company appealed and was told that the appeal would be heard within two weeks. It has now been told that it will not be heard until the end of March, by which time many of the budgets will be set and many of the cuts will be beginning to bite. That is too late for the vulnerable people Hossacks was going to represent.

Nigel Evans: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman talking about a live case?

Brian Binley: No, I am not, because it has been stopped by the LSC.
	I simply want the Minister to look into the matter to see how many more vulnerable people are being affected by decisions taken by the LSC that are premature given the debate that is currently going on.

Anas Sarwar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian Binley: I really do not have the time.
	I ask the Minister to come back to me on this matter, because it raises a considerable concern that affects many people throughout the country. If the LSC is acting prematurely, it should be stopped until the debate is over and the consultation is finished.
	I have finished within the time you wished, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: I call Karl Turner, who can take two minutes. You have to sit down at 5.35 pm, please.

Karl Turner: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing the debate.
	In the two minutes that I have, I shall concentrate on the citizens advice bureau in my area. I met the chief executive, Lesley Thornley, on Tuesday, and she highlighted the real problems that she thinks the CAB will suffer from. There seems to be a triple whammy. First, the financial inclusion fund will be gone. Some 50% of the advice that the CAB in my area provides is debt management advice, and she is concerned about what will happen to the people affected as a result of that cut. Secondly, there are the real-terms cuts to legal aid, and thirdly there are the cuts to the local authority, which she tells me will lead to 42% cuts to her CAB. She highlighted the fact that the Birmingham CAB is closing as a result of cuts, and she is very worried that the CAB in my area will also close.
	I have spoken on numerous occasions to solicitors in my area, including very recently to Mr Waddington of Williamsons solicitors. He tells me that this issue is about access to justice. Publicly funded lawyers do not go into the job to earn big sums of money, just as teachers do not go into teaching to do so. Will the Minister ensure that he looks very seriously at the proposals? Vulnerable people will suffer as a consequence of the Government's programme.

Nigel Evans: Order. I will ask that your short speech does not count against you in relation to the number of times that you have spoken.

Andy Slaughter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing this debate, which has been an excellent example of Back-Bench debates focusing on an issue that is causing great concern in constituencies around the country. We have heard many good speeches from both sides of the House.
	It is appropriate that Members on both sides of the House speak in defence of legal aid, because it was on the recommendation of a Committee headed by a Conservative peer Lord Rushcliffe that legal aid was first proposed in 1943, and it was a Labour Government and a Labour Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, who piloted the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 through Parliament. The Secretary of State for Justice says that he wishes to return to the original intent of legal aid, but the original intent of legal aid is captured in paragraph 40 of Magna Carta:
	"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."
	Those were the very words that Sir Hartley Shawcross had in mind when he said on Second Reading of the 1949 Act:
	"It is a Bill which will open the doors of the courts freely to all persons who may wish to avail themselves of British justice without regard to the question of their wealth or ability to pay."-[ Official Report, 15 December 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1221.]
	The Government's Green Paper presents their plans as a return to the founding intent of legal aid, but they are in fact the exact opposite. They will remove the average person's ability to seek justice.
	I wish to focus on the cuts that will cause most damage-those to social welfare legal aid-but that is not to say that there are no problems with other aspects of the Government's proposals. The narrow definition of domestic violence cases will leave women and children vulnerable and less able to seek help; the failure sufficiently to address the costs of very high-cost criminal cases is a mistake and a missed opportunity; and taking clinical negligence out of scope, alongside proposed changes to civil litigation funding, will end the ability of many people to challenge negligence and malpractice. However, it is the cuts to social welfare legal aid that we find most unacceptable. They will result in the complete collapse of the social welfare advisory sector, and do so, ironically, at huge cost to the state.
	In the short time that I have, let me give five reasons why those cuts are wrong. First, the advisory sector will all but disappear. The Government propose to eliminate almost all legal aid for social welfare, including legal aid for debt, housing, education, welfare, employment and immigration cases. They will cut funding for many advisory services, such as citizens advice bureaux and law centres.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is my Friend aware that the High Court this week found in favour of the Mary Ward centre and other voluntary organisations that were threatened with a huge cut by London councils on the ground that inadequate equality assessments were made in advance of the proposed cuts? That is a taster of what is to come if the Government try to put those cuts through.

Andy Slaughter: Absolutely. I pay tribute to the Mary Ward centre, which I visited recently with Lord Bach, and to many other law centres around the country that do such sterling work.
	The cuts to law centres and citizens advice bureaux come alongside cuts to the financial inclusion fund and local authority funding. Hammersmith and Fulham community law centre, where I have been a member of the management board for 20 years, has lost all its local authority funding, and will, if the Government's equality impact assessment is to be believed, lose 90% of its Legal Services Commission funding. Most law centres around the country and many citizens advice bureaux and private firms will be forced to close. Remaining citizens advice bureaux will find their ability to provide services considerably diminished, particularly those in areas of greatest deprivation. The knowledge, talented advisers and high-quality service provided at far below the market are irreplaceable.
	The second point is that the most vulnerable will be hurt at a time of great economic turmoil. Let us consider the people served by those organisations I have just discussed. The Ministry itself estimates that 85% of legal representation and 80% of legal help is for individuals within the bottom income quintile. People with mental health problems and other disabilities experience much higher rates of unemployment, debt, homelessness and discrimination and will therefore be disproportionately affected. The disabled are twice as likely to live in poverty as the non-disabled. According to Mind, many callers are profoundly distressed and unable to explain their problems clearly. They find it traumatic to discuss those problems with a stranger over the phone and need face-to-face contact.
	Thirdly, the Government overstate the ability of people to navigate the legal system without advice or guidance. The Green Paper misrepresents the reality of tribunals, and ignores the fact that the law is ever changing and highly complex. Without specialist advice, many claimants would be unable to prepare a case for first-tier, let alone upper tribunals. Representation before court and in court streamlines the legal system and makes it more efficient. These cuts will deepen the existing inequalities of arms and lead to injustice-and also to great inefficiency in the civil legal system. Without representation, appellants are more likely to request an adjournment, get things wrong, achieve less fair outcomes and therefore go on to appeal-all of which cause delays and costs.
	Fourthly, the alternatives suggested by the Government are inappropriate or inadequate. The Minister says that people should seek advice from tribunals, respondent organisations themselves or the pro bono sector. The first two options have been greeted with incredulity. As for the last, the Free Representation Unit-the largest pro bono organisation in the UK-said in response to the Green Paper that it
	"gives a misleading impression. It wrongly uses the role of FRU to support its conclusions. The work that FRU does can...be no part of the justification for withdrawing Legal Help in this area. FRU is in no position to replace the invaluable work of publicly funded solicitors, law centres and Citizens' Advice Bureaux in giving initial advice."
	That is right. The pro bono sector cannot exist in its current form without the infrastructure of the advisory sector.
	The fifth and final reason why these cuts are wrong is that the Government's sums do not add up. People who cannot resolve their problems often accumulate more problems and end up in cycles of decline, including social exclusion, eviction, unemployment, stress and depression, relationship and family breakdown. Children whose families are experiencing social problems are more likely to become involved in truancy, exclusion and offending. Early resolution saves time and money in identifying meritorious cases to take to court and preparing clients appropriately, and settling out of court where possible. Once someone is already homeless it costs the state tens of thousands of pounds to get them out of that situation. Just at first-tier tribunal stage, Government figures show that had the proposed cuts been in place last year, more than 51,000 cases that were successful would not have been, due solely to a lack of advice and representation.
	The Green Paper is filled with inaccuracy, imprecision and outright fallacy. The sums do not add up, and it will lead to the disastrous loss of many of the CABs and law centres that are-to quote the excellent article by the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) in today's  Guardian-the "last line of defence" against catastrophe for the tens of thousands of people they help every year.
	Yesterday, someone who has spent much of their professional life providing legal assistance to those who cannot afford it asked me why no one has yet put this question in terms of the rule of law. A civilised society is one that encourages its decisions to be challenged and that understands that no decision can be beyond reproach. The legal aid system ensures that citizens can seek and gain justice, and that their lives are not placed into turmoil simply because they lack the means to challenge the decisions of large public and private corporations. That is the question that should haunt anyone who seeks to make such devastating cuts to a service that rightly makes us proud.
	As for those outside this Chamber who have dedicated themselves to helping the most vulnerable navigate an often bewildering legal system, I join many of my colleagues in thanking them for all that they do for our country. They are the embodiment of the kind of civil society in which Labour has believed for so long. Many give their time for free. Others have accrued decades of valuable experience, with unique insight into the communities they serve, and I encourage them to make their voices heard. If their voices are not heard now, and if the stories of those whom they help are not heard, this Government intend to silence them forever. They should be assured that we will stand alongside them, our voices will join with theirs, and together we will resist these acts of sheer vandalism.

Jonathan Djanogly: I congratulate the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing this important debate, in which we have heard many excellent contributions.
	It has been helpful to hear first-hand from those who have contributed today, but before responding to some of the specific issues raised, of which there were many, I would like to reiterate the rationale and context of the reform proposals. I should say at the outset that the Government strongly agree with the views expressed by many Members today that access to justice is a hallmark of a civilised society, and that the provision of legal aid, in a targeted, focused and sustainable way, is a key part of ensuring appropriate access to justice. So I say to the hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) that our aim is to direct our scarce resources towards helping the most vulnerable.
	As hon. Members will know, the Government have pledged to reduce the budget deficit to deal with the acute financial crisis and encourage economic recovery. The Department has to reduce its budget by £2 billion by 2014-15, and legal aid, being one of just three big areas of spending in the Ministry of Justice, needs to make a substantial contribution of £350 million to that reduction. However, the need to make savings gives us the impetus and urgency for change and provides us with the opportunity radically to reform a system that, in many cases, needed reform anyway. To that extent, I agree with the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) that our policy cannot simply be determined by how we deal with the deficit.
	In June, we announced that we would be taking a fundamental look at the legal aid system. Our aim was then, and remains now, to create a stable and sustainable system that ensures access to public funding in those cases that really require it, the protection of the most vulnerable in our society and the efficient performance of our justice system. This also reflects the aim of creating a more efficient legal aid system as set out in the coalition Government document. Since the modern legal aid scheme was established in 1949, its scope has been widened far beyond what was originally intended. By 1999, legal aid funding was available for virtually every type of issue, including some that should not require any legal expertise to resolve.

Helen Grant: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: I would love to give way, but with so many points having been made, I cannot. I apologise.
	I believe that that has too often encouraged people to bring their problems before the courts even where the courts are not best placed to provide the best solutions, and discouraged them from seeking simpler, more appropriate remedies. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) on her excellent article this afternoon.
	Indeed, the scheme now costs more than £2 billion a year, making it one of the most generous schemes in the world, even taking jurisdictional differences into account. We need to understand that, even after the proposed reforms, we are still going to have one of the most expensive schemes in the world. The previous Government made many attempts to reform legal aid, conducting more than 30 consultations since 2006, but the changes were of a piecemeal nature and failed to address the underlying problems. Rather than continue with this "cut and come again" approach, we have gone back to basic principles to make choices about which issues are of sufficient priority to justify the use of public funds, subject to people's means and the merits of the case.
	The Opposition's general position on legal aid is staggeringly inconsistent and opportunistic. Labour appears to be backing down on its commitment to support legal aid reform. In an article on Left Foot Forward, the shadow justice Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), wrote:
	"It is nonsensical...to cut these long established public services."
	The article seems to reveal a split between the shadow Justice team and its party leader, who said at a recent press conference that with regard to the reductions in legal aid
	"Labour has shown it is ready to make difficult cuts which we believe are necessary for the long term health of our economy."
	Its leader was, of course, reiterating the promise made in the 2010 Labour manifesto:
	"We will find greater savings in legal aid".
	It also contradicts the statement of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) offering support to the Government when the reforms were announced last year. He said:
	"Let me be clear: had we been in government today, we, too, would have been announcing savings to the legal aid budget. That is a reality that we all have to acknowledge."-[ Official Report, 15 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 663.]

Andy Slaughter: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: I think I do have to give way on this one.

Andy Slaughter: I think the Minister does, now that he has read out the central office briefing. I urge him either to read the shadow Lord Chancellor's article in the  Solicitors Journal today, or even my speech in Westminster Hall before Christmas, which he would have heard had he turned up for it. If he does, he will see exactly where we would make the cuts and that we have made it clear throughout that we would not cut essential social welfare legal aid.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am pleased to hear some clarification of what the Opposition are not going to do; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come back to the House to tell us what they are going to do, so that we can take a view on where they are coming from on this issue, because they have been thoroughly unimpressive to date.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: No, I will not.
	The proposals in our consultation paper take into account the importance of the issue at stake, the litigant's ability to present their own case, the availability of alternative sources of funding and alternative routes to resolving the issue, as well as our domestic and international legal obligations. I should also point out that the consultation is still open, and that I am therefore here to listen to hon. Members' views rather than to agree or disagree with any particular view.
	We propose to focus financial support, and legal advice and representation, on those who need it most. The proposed reforms involve significant change to the scope of legal aid funding. Having said that, I should make it clear that we are not proposing any changes to the scope of criminal legal aid, and that legal aid will also still routinely be available in civil and family cases in which people's life or liberty is at stake, or in which a person is at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home. For example, I can confirm to the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that we plan to retain legal aid for asylum cases, but not for immigration cases, except when the person is in detention.
	Legal aid will also be retained for debt and housing matters when someone's home is at immediate risk, and for mental health cases. It will still be provided when people face intervention from the state in their family affairs that could result in their children being taken into care, and for cases involving domestic violence, child abduction or forced marriage. We also propose that legal aid should remain available for cases in which people seek to hold the state to account by judicial review for the most serious claims against public authorities. We shall also keep it for cases involving discrimination that are currently in scope, and for community care cases where the recipients are often very elderly and vulnerable.
	Many hon. Members raised the question of telephone advice. Although that will provide a gateway, it will not stop face-to-face advice being given when that is appropriate. It will facilitate the more effective sourcing of services and help the disabled. People will be able to ask to be called back, as is currently the case, so the cost would be low. I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) that we believe the telephone advice will assist people in rural areas, and that language translation will be catered for, particularly for Welsh speakers. The service currently has a satisfaction rating of more than 90%, so we see it as a very good service.
	We recognise that there will be some cases, even within the areas of law that we propose to remove from scope, that international or domestic law will require to be funded by the taxpayer, or inquest cases where there is a significant wider public interest in funding legal representation. We therefore propose a new exceptional funding scheme for excluded cases. We also consider that the long-drawn-out, acrimonious nature of court proceedings too often exacerbates disputes rather than solve them. Alternatives often exist that are not only cheaper than rushing to court but faster and less contentious. So we will continue to provide funding for family mediation, to encourage people to use this more effective method to resolve issues between themselves, rather than using up precious taxpayers' money and the courts' time.
	Of course, mediation is only one alternative to court proceedings. Work is going on across government to change our litigation culture and encourage alternative and less acrimonious dispute resolution. For example, the Government are currently seeking views on measures to achieve more early resolution of workplace disputes through ACAS conciliation, so that all parties have a chance to resolve their own problems in a way that is fair and equitable for both sides, without having to go to an employment tribunal.
	Likewise, the Department for Education is looking into involving parents in early discussions and decisions about the special educational needs support that they need, so that they do not have to battle through the tribunal process. I think it was the hon. Member for Westminster North who said that 82% of appellants in SEN matters succeeded in their appeals. I should point out to her, however, that just 18% of parents are currently legally represented in those appeals.
	On eligibility, we are not changing the criminal means-testing introduced by the previous Government. In civil cases, however, we believe that those able to pay for or contribute to the costs of their case should do so. This will help to ensure continued access to public funding, in those cases that really require it, for those who have little or no funds of their own. The consultation paper therefore includes the proposal that all clients with £1,000 or more of disposable capital should make a minimum £100 contribution to their legal costs, and that the capital of any prospective legal aid clients is taken into account when considering eligibility. We believe that this will encourage a greater sense of personal responsibility by giving clients a greater financial interest in the conduct of their case, as well as helping to discourage unnecessary litigation at taxpayers' expense.
	Many Members, including the hon. Members for Makerfield, for Westminster North, for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), the right hon. Member for Exeter and my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), made points about the highly valued not-for-profit sector. Having frequently met the CAB, Shelter and other voluntary groups, I appreciate that the not-for-profit sector has particular concerns, but the important point is that this issue goes way beyond legal aid. Indeed, funding from legal aid represents a minority of many CABs' income-we believe only about 15% of CABs' income comes from legal aid-and many do not receive any legal aid income at all; the three CABs in my constituency receive no legal aid money, for example. That is because the basic role of CABs is to give general advice, not necessarily legal aid advice, as they have been allowed to do only for the past 11 years. The problem, however, for those that do give legal advice is that legal aid funding will often merge with other funding streams. CABs are funded mainly by local councils and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills centrally, and removing one stream could have a knock-on effect, but that does not make it wrong for us to be unwilling to pay legal aid for general advice.
	The reality is that the funding streams have been in conflict for years, and effort and services have been duplicated and resources wasted, although the previous Government never sorted this out while their money machine was pumping away. We have recognised this problem, and I am pleased to be able to say that we are working closely with the Cabinet Office-based Office for Civil Society, which will look at this important issue across Government. To answer a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I should say that transitional funding may be available.
	We certainly see an important role for not-for-profit organisations in the advice sector. The coalition Government support such organisations, including CABs, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, we hope that local government will share our view that they play an integral part in civil society. I am also happy to look at the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley).
	The hon. Members for Makerfield and for Westminster North, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and others spoke about welfare benefits. We recognise that some people find publicly funded legal advice and advice on welfare benefit matters helpful. However, the user-friendly nature of the tribunal means that appellants can generally present their case without assistance. More particularly, the issues raised are normally ones that should be dealt with by general advice, not legal aid. When I visited a law centre recently, I was shocked to hear that local benefits officers were sending people to the law centre for advice on what benefits they could claim. This is a bizarre situation, and it is not going to be solved by throwing legal aid money at the problem.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Jonathan Djanogly: I am afraid to have to tell hon. Members that I have run out of time.
	This debate will continue, as will the consultation. I can honestly say that we are looking forward to receiving the consultation responses of Members and all other respondees.

Yvonne Fovargue: I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. Some good and passionate points were made on both sides of the argument. Legal aid has been called the fourth pillar of the welfare state, and I urge the Minister to listen and take on board some of the points that have been made, and not to cut into the legal aid budget so deeply that the whole building collapses, leaving Members to pick up the pieces in their surgeries.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of the reform of legal aid.

Bob Russell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, whose leadership heads the most incompetent quango in the country, has today published a "name and shame" of Members of Parliament who, in its mind, have made claims to which they were not entitled. Among those names is mine, but I have to tell the House that the payment was made to me in full on 13 December. IPSA knew that. Admittedly, it took two months to pay, but it acknowledged that the claim was legitimate and it was paid. However, my name appears in a list of those who had a claim refused. What action can be taken by Members who have been maligned-one could argue libelled and slandered-by this incompetent organisation?

Nigel Evans: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Speaker's Panel on IPSA, and I am almost tempted to ask him to refer this matter to himself, but I will not do that. He knows that the matter that he has raised is not a procedural point for the Chair, but he has put his views on the record and he knows that there are other ways of taking the matter further.

STV

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr Dunne.)

Anas Sarwar: I am grateful for the chance to speak about an issue that is of great importance to the city of Glasgow and to Scotland. The challenge of jobs and growth will be a defining political issue in the coming year. People want to know where new jobs and future prosperity will come from. Those in the private sector, who must create the jobs and wealth that Britain needs, will want to know whether everything that could be done is being done to support their efforts. They will want to know whether our Government are making the right choices on jobs and growth, and the right choices for the future of Britain.
	One such company already asking those questions is STV Productions in my constituency. STV Productions is one of the few businesses of scale in the Scottish television production sector. It is a hugely important part of the Scottish creative industries cluster and a key employer in Glasgow's thriving media hub on the banks of the River Clyde. The growth of STV Productions can help to secure and develop a thriving, sustainable television production sector in Glasgow and throughout Scotland, delivering significant economic, social and cultural benefits. The growth of STV Productions will also secure and create much-needed private sector jobs.
	The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development says that the impact of Government spending plans will mean a 200,000 drop in employment this year. Under those headlines are larger numbers of job losses. PricewaterhouseCoopers calculates that public sector cuts will lead directly to around 500,000 private sector job losses over the spending review period. The CIPD has previously said that 1.6 million jobs could be lost, with the increase in VAT estimated to cost 250,000 jobs. Jobs will be created in the recovery, but the challenge to replace all the jobs lost through public spending cuts, as well as those lost as a result of the unemployment remaining after the global banking crisis and the impact of VAT, will be huge. The jobs that Britain needs can be created only by successful and growing private companies. They need the confidence and certainty that will justify their investing. Public policy must be focused relentlessly on creating the conditions for growth. Today the Government are making a series of wrong choices that will hamper the ability of private companies to grow.
	Last November, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport made a choice that denied STV Productions the independent status that it sought. Officially classifying STV as an independent television production company would have allowed it to compete for programme commissions under production quotas reserved for independents by broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4. In short, independent status would have offered STV Productions the chance to create employment opportunities in Glasgow. Ofcom broadly welcomed STV's aspirations, saying that independent status would encourage greater access to network commissioning by external producers. Meanwhile, Ofcom's advisory committee for Scotland endorsed the broad policy position of ensuring that television production be enhanced in the nations. The Secretary of State decided to overlook that advice and deny STV independent status.
	STV Productions currently supports 305 full-time equivalent jobs. The company's combined direct, supplier and income impacts stand at £15.3 million of gross value added in the Scottish economy. If STV Productions maintains its current market share in 2016, its economic impact will increase to 317 jobs and £15.9 million in GVA.

Ian Murray: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on Scottish television. It is a shame that we could not have a motion of no confidence in the Government right now, given that there is nobody on the Government Benches, but I know that that is not the way procedure works. My hon. Friend is eloquently outlining STV's contribution to the economy. Independent producer status would allow that contribution to grow even further, leading not just to STV's growth, but to the growth of the entire production sector in Scotland, helping it to branch out from its hub in Glasgow to many other parts, including my constituency.

Anas Sarwar: I thank my hon. Friend for staying for the debate. I agree wholeheartedly with his comments. Independent status would not only benefit STV, create jobs in the company and create growth in the city of Glasgow, but help other independent production companies in Glasgow and throughout Scotland to branch out in many of the sectors involved.
	Had STV Productions gained independent status, its competitiveness would have increased in the BBC market and other domestic and international markets. By 2016, such an increase in competitiveness could have increased its economic impact by 30% to 396 jobs and £19.8 million in gross value added. However, as a result of the Secretary of State's decision, the economic impact of STV Productions in 2016 is expected to be £3.9 million less than it could have been.
	The provision of 79 full-time equivalent jobs would have been great in itself, but as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), independent status for STV Productions would also have had an effect on the economic impact of the wider production sector in Scotland. The growth of a company of scale would have led to an increase in the competitiveness of the sector as a whole., and that increased competitiveness could have allowed independents with Scottish headquarters to compete against international production companies with a presence in Scotland. By 2016, the resulting growth could have increased the economic impact of the sector as a whole to £98 million and supported 1,847 jobs. That is private sector growth on a scale that the Government cannot afford to ignore.
	The Secretary of State could have secured a bright future for the independent production sector in my constituency and beyond. Instead, his decision will allow independents with headquarters outside Scotland to gain at the expense of the growth of STV Productions and those with headquarters in Scotland. The overall effect will be a reduction in the future economic impact of the television production sector in Scotland. The decision fails to recognise that STV is perhaps the only Scottish company with sufficient capacity to take on such large-scale productions. It fails to show a full understanding of the measures needed to secure a viable and sustainable broadcasting industry in Scotland. Above all, it fails to encourage private sector job creation in my constituency and throughout Scotland.
	The creation of a strong and competitive private sector must be central to the society that we are trying to build. We must support people who are in business and leading businesses. We need growth and job creation over the next year, but we also need to lay the foundations for a stronger, better balanced economy in the future.
	I recognise the concerns of smaller independent production companies in Glasgow and in Scotland as a whole, and I accept that STV Productions will have to address many of those concerns if it wants independent status, but I genuinely believe that all independent production companies-including STV, if it could acquire its licence-would benefit from the resulting growth in the sector.
	I want to see companies such as STV Productions grow, create more profits and create more jobs. With that in mind, I invite the Secretary of State, along with his colleagues, to visit STV Productions in the beautiful city of Glasgow, on the banks of the River Clyde, and to review his decision. That would benefit my constituency, the city of Glasgow and Scotland as a whole.

John Penrose: Let me begin by apologising for the absence of the handsome and talented Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who is responsible for culture, communications and creative industries, whose portfolio is relevant to the debate, and whom Members may have expected to see this evening. Many Members will be delighted to learn that the reason for his absence is the fact that he is in Scotland as we speak. He has been in Edinburgh to discuss broadband, and then in Dundee to discuss the video games industry. However, I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue with the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) in his stead.

Anas Sarwar: Will the Minister give way?

John Penrose: I will, although I have hardly got started.

Anas Sarwar: Given that the other Minister is currently in Scotland, he might like to extend his visit to Glasgow. I am sure that I could hastily organise a visit to STV Productions tomorrow, or even late this evening, if he so wishes.

John Penrose: I am sure that that is a kind and heartfelt invitation, but I suspect that it may have come rather late in the day, given the state of the Minister's diary. None the less, I will make sure that he is aware that the offer was made. In addition, an earlier intervention claimed that nobody was on the Government Benches, but given that I was sitting there large as life feeling like chopped liver as I was stared through by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), may I put on the record the fact that there were people here listening very intently to the comments that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) was making?
	One of the key strengths of UK broadcasting comes from having a TV production base spread out across the nations and regions of the UK. That ensures that a more diverse collection of views and voices are reflected back at all aspects of the audience through their TV screens. As well as the considerable cultural and social benefits to the population, the arrangement enhances national, regional and local economies. The Government recognise that much of the country's best television comes from the nations and regions, and we welcome the contribution that STV, in particular, makes towards public service broadcasting in the UK. STV's local news, in particular, is extremely strong and we welcome STV's recent announcement of a pilot to deliver more local TV news for the west and east of Scotland. That builds on the launch of its STV Local sites and shows a real commitment to serving audience demand for more localised and relevant content.
	On a related note, hon. Members will be aware that the Government published their local media action plan in January. I wish to reiterate that the Government are keen to hear the views of industry and the public on our proposals, and to receive expressions of interest from organisations interested in running a new network channel to support local television services. Local media is a vital part of local democracy and I encourage everyone with an interest to respond to the public consultation.
	I now return to the meat of today's debate. STV is important but of course so too are the independent producers in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Glasgow Central mentioned, the Secretary of State considered thoroughly last year the matter of the potential reclassification of production companies owned by Channel 3 licence holders. That consideration took into account the responses from 29 organisations, including the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, Ofcom, the Scottish Government, STV, Channel 4 and several Scottish independent television producers. The responses covered a variety of viewpoints, but the voice of the existing Scottish independent sector was loud and clear in opposing the reclassification of STV's production companies as independent producers.
	The consultation closed on 2 February 2010 and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport announced the Secretary of State's decision on 10 November 2010. I believe that the hon. Gentleman understands that the delay occurred because once the Secretary of State took office in May 2010 he wanted to look afresh at the proposal in the "Digital Britain" White Paper and the responses to the public consultation. It is important to make it clear that this decision was not taken in isolation and was not taken lightly. As we have seen in today's debate, there are genuine and valid opinions on both sides of the argument. The Secretary of State concluded that, on balance, the potential benefits of implementing the proposal did not outweigh the likely negative effects, particularly on the existing Scottish independent production sector.

Tom Greatrex: I realise that this is not the Minister's direct brief, but does he appreciate that the point made by PACT in response to the consultation misses the fact that if STV does not have this status, there is not the scale for the large-scale independent production to take place in Scotland? STV getting this status would actually help the other independents, rather than hinder them.

John Penrose: I plan to deal with some of the remarks made by PACT later in my speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about part of its remarks, but we have to take into account not only its remarks in their totality, but all the other remarks and consultation submissions made in response to the Government's request.
	The Secretary of State believed it inappropriate to consider this matter in isolation, given the wider and more comprehensive review of public sector broadcasting and regulation that the Government are undertaking over the term of this Parliament. On that basis, he concluded that the proposal should not be taken forward. The Government appreciate that this decision will not be welcomed by everybody. Implementation of the proposal was not, however, in the interests of the Scottish economy as a whole, nor was it likely to promote competition or diversity of production in the long run.
	The responses to the public consultation are published on my Department's website, but I wish to highlight some of the specific points raised by the existing independent production sector. They perhaps deal with some of the interventions that have been made, and they highlight the concerns raised and give some background to the decision.
	Many respondents were concerned about the displacement of commissions from the existing Scottish independent production companies to STV. PACT said:
	"There is significant risk that the proposed change in the definition would potentially severely damage the Scottish production sector by displacing commissions from other Scottish producers".
	Its contribution expanded on this by saying that
	"our main concern, though, is that STV will displace commissions not from London companies but from other, typically smaller Scottish independents, with the resulting damage to the Scottish production sector. The last five years have seen the growth of larger, typically London-based independent companies. However, with a few exceptions, Scotland remains characterised by small companies specialising in one or two genres. A 2008 report, for example, indicated that average turnover for an independent company in Scotland was just £1.33m per year."

Ian Murray: On PACT's point about the sector in Scotland being characterised by small production companies, the issue for Channel 4 in trying to commission more programmes from Scotland to try to get its percentages up- everyone in Scotland is keen that that should happen-is that there is not sufficient critical mass up there to produce something that Channel 4 could do on a returning basis to achieve that. The only organisations that could do that are the BBC, which cannot do it for licensing reasons, and STV Productions, which cannot do it because it does not have independent producer status, so there is a bit of circular argument on this issue.

John Penrose: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's logic, but the burden of what PACT has said is that the danger of giving STV independent production status is that it would cannibalise existing Scottish independents and we would end up with a much smaller number of larger producers, with STV massively in the lead. That is a possible outcome, but clearly the Secretary of State, in balancing what he was asked to consider, did not view it as strongly as some of the alternative outcomes.

Anas Sarwar: In our discussions with Channel 4, we found that it has set a target of increasing its spending on the independent sector in Scotland from 3% to 9%, but it has emphasised that it feels that only STV is currently able to provide the required quality of programming and expertise. Does the Minister recognise that it is a bit of a myth that STV would be the largest independent production company in Scotland if it were to get independent status, given that there are independent companies in Scotland that were previously owned by Warner Bros. and are now owned by Endemol-an independent-sector producer that is even larger than Channel 4?

John Penrose: The hon. Gentleman advances the argument that only STV has the scale to achieve the kind of programming status and quality that everybody wants, but surely, the existence of other very large independents must undermine the logic of that position in the first place.
	Let me make some more progress on other comments in the consultation. La Belle Allée Productions considered that there would be
	"a real and significant danger of STV displacing commissions from other Scottish companies".
	IWC Media believed that there is a "significant risk" that the proposal
	"would damage the Scottish production sector, by removing work from the companies that need it most".
	Matchlight said that the proposal would
	"substantially harm other, smaller Scottish producers by displacing jobs and network productions from them in favour of STV and the overall effect will be a zero sum game for Scotland-no new jobs created, no new work attracted".
	Tattiemoon also disputed that the reclassification would create any jobs. Its response said:
	"To believe the claims that this change in status would result in the creation of more jobs for our industry would be a terrific mistake and one that we cannot afford to make. STV are aiming to adjust their position in order that they can have more control of our industry and compete in an incredibly unfair manner with other programme makers".
	Doubt was also expressed about the overall cultural benefit to Scotland. Tattiemoon said:
	"Here we have STV as a broadcaster breaking all the rules to become an independent for fiscal gains and not for the overall cultural well being of the nation".
	Turmeric Media focused on funding, training and development opportunities and asserted that STV would
	"exploit many of the excellent funding, training and business development opportunities that exist in Scotland that help small indies survive, again to the detriment of the small indie".
	Many independent producers made general comments about the potential negative impact on the industry generally. Bees Nees believes that
	"The granting of independent status to STV...would be to the detriment of the independent production sector in Scotland."
	Matchlight believes that the proposal
	"seems more likely to frustrate the Government's stated objective of protecting Scotland's sustainable production base than to promote it."
	I will add one more quote, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mike Bolland, a former chair of PACT, told us the proposal
	"would upset the delicate ecology of television production in Scotland".

Anas Sarwar: The Minister is rightly quoting those who participated in the consultation process, but is he willing to quote also what Ofcom said in its response-it agreed with the proposal for independent status for STV-or what the Scottish Government said about STV Productions having a role to play in the Scottish economy?

John Penrose: I do not deny that there were consultation submissions in favour-that is absolutely correct. What I am trying to illustrate is the strong tide of opinion against the proposal. Clearly, the Secretary of State had to take all sides of the argument into account. It is because the hon. Gentleman and his two colleagues strongly put the case in favour of the proposal that I am trying to ensure that we have a balance in the debate. It is important to remember that there are two valid sides to the argument-the decision was a difficult one that required a degree of care on the part of the Secretary of State-and I hope that I have managed to illustrate that, given that the hon. Gentleman made the other side of the case so strongly in his speech.
	PACT in particular raised some further interesting points. It considers that STV is already well placed to take advantage of the predicted growth in the Scottish production sector-the hon. Gentleman mentioned that-even without qualifying as an independent. Furthermore, PACT noted that STV Productions and STV's wholly owned subsidiary Ginger Productions are already winning commissions from the full range of network commissioning broadcasters, including all public service broadcasters.
	It was also pointed out by respondents that the benefits accruing to STV, which STV itself provided to the Department for the purposes of the consultation, were minimal. As was noted in the published impact assessment, STV estimated that if its production arms were reclassified as independent under the proposal, it would experience an increase in production revenues of £400,000, to £1 million per annum. That represents an increase of just 15 hours of production and, STV estimated, would create five full-time jobs.
	Those were not the only viewpoints. Other contributors to the consultation were in favour of the proposal, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned and as I acknowledged in our last exchange. STV was, of course, strongly supportive of the proposal. The Government carefully considered the arguments put forward by STV for the benefits that would accrue both to STV and to the industry. STV believes that there would be a benefit to the Scottish economy arising from a greater dispersion of production throughout the UK. In particular, we noted STV's view that it was currently prevented from competing on a level playing field due to its minority role within the ITV network. STV told us it has no influence over commissioning decisions, is disadvantaged by its regulatory status and cannot compete for the independent quota.
	Ofcom, as the hon. Gentleman said, provided a valuable contribution and set out its reasons for broadly supporting the proposal. It did so on the basis that reclassification would encourage greater access to network commissioning by external producers, with potential associated benefits for the development of the production sector in the nations. We also noted Ofcom's reference to the conclusion of its advisory committee for Scotland, which suggested that the benefit to existing Scottish independents, in the form of a larger number of commissioned co-productions between STV and other producers, is unproven.
	I hope that I have provided a useful and, in the light of my last couple of points, at least reasonably balanced summary of some of the contributions to the consultation. I encourage hon. Members to read the full responses on my Department's website, although I think it is clear that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have conducted a fairly extensive trawl of the submissions and are already possessed of a high degree of familiarity with them. For the record, however, and for anyone else who is interested, I just wanted to point out that the responses are there for anybody who wishes to see them.
	Some hon. Members may be aware of the recent evidence provided by STV in the Biggar report, which indicates a rather larger financial benefit than was originally projected in the impact assessment. We have seen that report, but it was received six weeks after the decision had been announced and 10 months after the consultation closed. The point remains that the voice of the existing independent sector is loud and clear: it does not want this to happen. As I have mentioned, in making his decision the Secretary of State also concluded that it is inappropriate to consider the matter in isolation. He announced in January that we are embarking on a major review of the communications sector. It will be a wide and comprehensive review leading to a new communications Act before the end of this Parliament.
	I should make it clear that we do not intend to review again the specific issue of the potential re-classification of production companies owned by Channel 3 licence holders, but the review will include an assessment of public service broadcasting and regulation, and the broader issues of independent production are almost certain to be part of that.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.